Post navigation

Viva la Vida – What does it all mean?

There has been much speculation recently on the “hidden” meaning in the lyrics of Coldplay’s hit new song, Viva La Vida. Penned by Chris Martin, lead singer, pianist and husband to actress Gwyneth Paltrow, the song has become Coldplay’s biggest hit.

Although some people listen to a song without actually thinking or caring about what the lyrics mean, others like myself, tend to appreciate good lyrics as one does good poetry, and we also wonder what the artist means by his words. I tend to believe that all songwriters write with great meaning, often hidden, which makes music all the more interesting. According to Wikipedia, the title Viva la Vida translates from Spanish into “long live life.”

When asked by Q magazine about what he meant by the line “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” Chris Martin replied: “It’s about… You’re not on the list. I was a naughty boy. It’s always fascinated me that idea of finishing your life and then being analyzed on it. And this idea runs throughout most religions. That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me. And this is serious.”

At some point Chris has stated that he is not sure about the existence of God and has also been quoted as saying “I’m always trying to work out what ‘He’ or ‘She’ is,” also saying “I don’t know if it’s Allah or Jesus or Mohammed or Zeus. But I’d go for Zeus.” In effect Chris has been cagey about his religious affiliation, or lack thereof. However, with this album, I think he has finally revealed his lack of belief n God, or at the very least, strong reservations about God’s existence. Arguably, the lyrics on other songs in the album such as Cemeteries of London and 42, hint at his religious doubts. So, with this I come to the crux of my essay: I think I may have cracked the real meaning behind the lyrics of Viva la Vida.

Let’s take the first verse:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sweep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

With this first verse (and subsequent verses), Chris assumes the position of the (imaginary, non-existent) God and laments the loss of power he once had (only in the minds of believers). “Now in the morning I sweep alone, Sweep the streets I used to own” is a reference to rational people abandoning religion in droves and realizing that religious claims (scripture etc.) are not real, hence the line “And I discovered that my castles stand, Upon pillars of sand.”

The second verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
Once you know there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
(Ohhh)

These lines refer to the evangelists who spread fear and used religious rhetoric in order to convert and keep ordinary people in subservience, and enforce a blind faith in a God. The lines “Be my mirror my sword and shield, My missionaries in a foreign field” speaks of how these evangelists are no longer revered, or trusted. The lines “Once you know there was never, never an honest word, That was when I ruled the world” just confirms how lies were told to con the people, and how it kept (the idea of) God in power.

The third verse:

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in.
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People could not believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

The first three lines of this verse is a confession of the “wicked and wild” manner in which the idea of God (and religion) was spread. It goes on to acknowledge that people had started to realize how God was just a power mad, megalomaniac (in reality just a manifestation of ordinary people’s own lust for power). “Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate” is a reference to non-believers (anti-theists and Atheists) who are waiting for the downfall of religion. “Just a puppet on a lonely string” is clear acknowledgement that ordinary men used religion (and the idea of God) to stake their claims for power, and that they were really pulling the strings all along (and still are). “Oh who would ever want to be king?” is off course the lament of an imaginary God who has been placed in an imaginary, untenable position.

The fourth verse:

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world
(Ohhhhh Ohhh Ohhh)

The conviction evidenced by “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” is the final admission that that there is no Saint Peter, never was, and never will be.

The last verse:

Hear Jerusalem bells are ringings
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
Oooooh Oooooh Oooooh”

“I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I am of the opinion that this song is perhaps the most brilliant piece of anti-religion, without actually explicitly saying so.

712 thoughts on “Viva la Vida – What does it all mean?”

I feel sad for Chris Martin and the loss of his faith, he has been blessed with a great gift. He inspires such life, joy, grace,and emotion with the purity of his music. Yet he seems lost… and his music is his outlet, filling up the hole that is his heart…I pray he finds himself.

Just remember Chris Martin is an anti-christian person, so this is what he got out of the lyrics. But like any piece of art, it’s up to the person that’s listening to come to their own conclusions. This song could have numerous scenarios. It’s like looking at a painting at a museum each person will get a different meaning from it.

I don’t think Chris Martin would appreciate being called anti-christian; I think he just chose Christianity for poetic effect, but the lyrics would apply to all religions, equally.

But, you’re right off course about the lyrics being art. And true that there could be many interpretations; this one is mine. That’s what makes art so wonderful and interesting; the different ways it could interpreted.

Dear Lenny,
I feel the allegory of Richard the Lionheart and Prince John just oozing out of this song and the Crusades from England to Rome with the armies into the “Holy Land”. The Revolutionaries of course being Sir Robin of Locksley and Friar Tuck and the gang! Power seized by foul means (wicked and wild winds) and then absolute power corrupting. Saint Peter’s role as gatekeeper of Heaven and the whole concept of a GOD who would eternally damn is only a man-made piece of religion. The King of England was the “Ruler of the known world at that time. “pillars of salt , pillars of sand” come from the Bible that this is a transitory world.””Be my mirror , my sword , my shield” is a take on Jesus’ teaching of relying on GOD for reflection, virtue, protection etc. As a student of comparative Religions it does not matter what name you give to the supreme power.Zeus is OK, Allah, etc. I love the lyrics as it is so POM! and echoes of a whole nation’s collective subconcious. BTW Avatar Meher Baba answers all the “questions” in the book GOD SPEAKS for the purists who are being grumpy. Love your take. Thanks for your time.Viva La Vida!

Nation’s collective consciousness? Whilst I agree with your post until that point, do understand that the idea of a nation-state was not clearly defined at that time, feudalistic society was the de-facto form of government and participation in the Crusades was undertaken to retain your fiefdom and for the glory of victory one could use to further their own ambitions, secondarily there was a mild respite in the premise that you would be looked upon favourably by God in the unfortunate event of your demise.

well obviously Chris believes in some higher power, just as you say he stated, “I’m always trying to work out what ‘He’ or ‘She’ is” and he also says that St. Peter won’t call his name for reasons he can’t explain. If he didn’t believe in the existence of God and St. Peter, he could explain it… just as you did, besides, in the interview he said it means he was a naughty boy and that is why St. Peter won’t call his name, not because St. Peter does not exist. He’s just like a regular guy trying to find his way, he will not go to hell because he is searching for God just as most of us are. He’ll be fine.

I agree, but I think he says St Peter wont call his name, because he knows he is not going to heaven. Why? Because he has been a ruler of cruelty and brutatilty, he has not been virtuous. How do I know this? “See the fear in my enemies eyes” “It was a wicked and wild wind that blew down the doors to let me in (to power) ” and most importantly “people couldnt believe what I had become” – to me, this speaks of someone who originally may have been virtuous and of good heart, corrupted by strife, confilct and power struggles who perhaps ends up being even more cruel that their predecessor.

I don’t think its a religious statement, I think it’s just telling you not to be arrogant even if you rule the world. He used to own the world and he lost it all. Also appreciate what you’ve got and be grateful.

Oh yea please like if you agree with me and what he’s saying then more people will see this and some might be open minded to this idea. Not that I want them to accept it but just to be open minded to it.

How can people say he has no faith? This whole song oozes faith, maybe not in God as such, but the whole tone is about power corrupting and the fact that if you are corrupted by power and cruel, you are not going to heaven “St Peter wont call my name”. Just about every single song that Coldplay release is uplifting, inspiring and to me they ooze faith. They are getting some divine inspiration here, and there is clearly some connection with the higher realms, even if it is coming to them through dreams or whatever. No nihlist would be able to write and sing like that consistently. I dont think you need to worry about him. Whether he is a Christian or not does not matter, he has got a connection to upstairs in some way so relax.

As an Spanish Native speaker , I just add that “Viva” is used to praise, joy, or thanks to something in a strong way, the exclamation character is missing, but I guess is because the phrase was prepared by non-Native Spanish people, It should be “¡Viva la Vida!”

I bet the singer tries to emphasize that he lost many things in life… but he is grateful with life itself

I am trying to understand that Coldplay tried to refer to Freedom and Life(“Vida”) as the same thing, or maybe he was trying to refer to Freedom directly …. there are some fuzzy spanish meaning there but I get the main idea

I don’t see him as anti religious. To be honest I don’t know much about Chris but he is only an agnostic atheist not an anti theist. It annoys me when people group these 2 together like they are the same.

that’s cold. We all have faith in something. You might have faith in NOT having faith. I HAVE faith in my faith (Jesus)… whatever we do or do not HAVE FAITH IN people have faith… but if you don’t have faith that is a dark place where you feel alone or unanswered often (not always but more often than not, so I gather from whom I’ve spoken with in my life). Not cool to rejoice in others’ laments JohnJohn.

Claire – faith is exactly what it means. Believing in something implicity without requiring any proof. Not having faith is not a dark place but a place where you are free from the shackles of religion. If you prefer to be shackled by your specific religion then you the one who is in a dark place! Broaden your mind – become a leader not a follower!

Andre, please Tell me how the cell, with all its complex inter cell functions, evolved in detail. Detail that explains how every moving part within the cell evolved at the same exact time and how all those cells formed not just an organ or organ system but a organism that uses multiple cells, cell systems,organs and organ systems all at one time. knowing that without all those systems evolving at the same exact time, complex life couldn’t exist. If you can answer that question in convincing detail down to every mitochondria and protein synthesizing receptor (not only will you be the only atheist in the world with a viable answer ) but i will come out of my dark place in religion; excepting it was all by impossible chance

Dr August? Really, you should know better! You are producing the age old argument from design which is easily demolished. Most of the explanations you seek, and ask for, can be answered, and in detail. There are many experts in the field of biology and related disciplines who could give you the precise answers and details you seek. How much time have you got? But science does not claim to know everything. Yet. But you are dodging the issue here. As has been pointed out, ad infinitum, the onus is upon those who make extraordinary claims in the name of religion to produce evidence.

Charles Darwin was a man of his time. Out of love and respect for his wife, who was a firm believer, he withheld publication of his work because he anticipated the storm it would provoke in the religious world. In Darwin’s day the religious establishment ruled the roost. The fact is, Darwin’s take on religion fluctuated, and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on religious matters. As I said, he was a man of his time. But religion always retreats with the advance of science.

This will be like trying to explain how an infinitely complex God, infinitely more complex than a cell, just came into existence, or existed for all eternity. If you feel that a complex cell could not have developed through evolution and feel that it was due to some supernatural entity, then prove it! At least I have some level of proof whereas you may not be able to prove how a supernatural entity managed to do it. Scripture of course is not exactly proof. I talking real proof!

I am assuming you believe in some supernatural entity of some kind which means your faith is strong enough to perform miracles. I wager you that if you can show me one miracle under controlled conditions (in the abscence of medical science) to my satisfaction. I mean a true miracle and not the ones often dished out by religious groups as a miracle at the expense of medical science. Only then will I consider joining the ranks of a religious group, and believe that the cell was created by some entity waving a ‘magic wand’. Until such time my belief will remain in the wonders/miracles of science!

A better question to be asked , Dr. August, is how the big bang can NOT break thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion, AND be still classified as an event. First of all, if you say that there was nothing before the big bang, you break thermodynamics. If you say there was no time before the big bang then you break Newton’s first law (an object at rest stays at rest until an unbalanced force acts upon it). The reason Newton’s first law idea works is because time is part of space, but is more simply defined as the measure of the time between events, or even more simply put the measure of motion.

Also experiments showing the creation of a protein that led to the first cell were flawed. The wrong type of protein was created and also a cold chamber was used. This shows flaws in the idea. Also, a lot of scientists have committed suicide because they found flaws in evolution (which they devoted their life to).

Arrant nonsense! If “lots of scientists have committed suicide because of flaws in evolution” lets have some solid evidence to back this claim! Give us some names and fact based reports to substantiate your ridiculous assumption!

I would rather not talk about this at all. No side will win and this will go on for infinity. Arguing between Religion/Philosophy and Science, never works out. Just drop the subject and move on to the next. This is getting tiresome. Best Wishes to you all, whichever side it may be.

‘Now this has been brought up to apologists before, and they like to say that this idea contradicts Big Bang Cosmology which says all matter and energy were created in the Big Bang.

‘The issue is that this is simply not true. There is absolutely no evidence at all in modern cosmology that all matter and energy was created at the Big Bang. The vast majority of cosmologists think there was some previous material state, either at the quantum level, or that the universe “always existed” by taking a tenseless/B-Theory of time route (ala Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal).’

Also, the second law of thermodynamics is easy enough to explain. It states that entropy never decreases in an isolated system. Does Earth look enclosed to you? These resources were easily found on the internet, and I’m sure a lot of other people know about thermodynamics better than me. Next time at least prepare your statements, as I don’t find that an answer easily found on the internet is worthy of speculation.

I have a “true miracle” I can speak of. I attribute it directly to the one true God. The one that came through His Son, Jesus Christ.

It defies science, left a team of the world’s most prestigious doctors, scientists, and geneticists dumbfounded. It is what a renowned, athiest physician humbly concluded was a “super-natural miracle, which flies in the face of science, logic, all I believe, have understood, or taught. Explainable only by the term ‘Divine Intervention'”.

Hi to all, go and study the newly discovered body of Pharoah and you decide if it’s miraculous or not. Whatever your decision, I respect it. But I can see the most of you here have ‘little’ knowledge of how deeply scientists of different fields have done so many discoveries. You don’t know also that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity has been proven that there’s mistake in it, don’t you know that? Don’t just watch TV. And Don’t you you know that physicists/scientists use the word “supernatural” term when they can’t explain something like Black-hole and any astronomical discoveries. Please do research about ASTRONOMY and don’t walk on earth as if you know everything that surrounds you.

I’m scientist and believe in ‘faith’ that there’s Someone who controls every cell in our bodies and every stars in the universe and how perfectly planets/moons/suns are moving.

Please don’t be a researcher instead of seeking proof of something or exploiting your egos. Be researcher guys and FAITH is always there and it’s always tied up in science and religion. Good luck and God bless you all. 🙂 Don’t hate me, I love you all. Ego is not a solution, but researching.

“And Don’t you you know that physicists/scientists use the word “supernatural” term when they can’t explain something like Black-hole and any astronomical discoveries.”

No they don’t. When they can’t expalin something immediately, they use the term “We can’t explain this… at the moment” And faith is NEVER tied up in science. Science requires empirical proof, not faith.

There is no success in trying to argue out the existence of God. As human as we all are, there have been adulteration and alterations in our beliefs and doctrines that thin out the claims and proofs of God’s existence. But if you search earnestly, you WILL find God. Only in the right places though. You will receive solace like none other. And when you do, try explaining what you feel to someone and see how limited you will be in your attempt. We all understand that God is an infinite complexity irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not right? Well reason with me; if at every point in your life, there is some theory or topic of subject, made up by another human being like you and that other humans like you are able to comprehend, that you can’t ever seem to understand; how much more trying to understand and Infinite Entity like God? Just think about it.

But more importantly, if you search earnestly, you WILL find Him and you will receive solace like none other.
Amen.

So you honestly think you’ve found god? Do you supppose that what you’ve found is NOT god, but because you couldn’t explain it rationally, you decided to just attribute your find as god, because it was so much easier to do?

“We all understand that God is an infinite complexity irrespective of whether one believes in Him or not right?”

Err, NO we all don’t.

“Well reason with me; if at every point in your life, there is some theory or topic of subject, made up by another human being like you and that other humans like you are able to comprehend, that you can’t ever seem to understand…”

I have thought about it, and I’m quite content to wait for a rational answer. Just accepting what makes you comfortable seems kinda lazy to me.

“Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” Matthew 4:7, in response to your request for a miracle. So how do you believe, Andre, that something came out of nothing. How did the universe come into existence? I’d like a specific example of your proof. Personally, I think it seems much more likely that a being too complex for us to fully understand controls and created the universe. Also, referencing scripture earlier is not trying to prove anything, it is the reason why a Christian won’t perform a miracle for you. Also, sometimes God will just say no. He isn’t there to give us whatever we want. I understand that many of you are much more knowledgeable on this subject but I just wanted to contribute my thoughts and the thoughts of authors I have read from.

Jack – personally it’s just horse radish. All religions emanated from myths dating back to Sumer, Egypt and many of the South American cultures (Mayas/Incas). The reason for so many similarities with today’s religion and the beliefs of ancient cultures. Also, the reason for 19 major world religions including 11 000 other religions and let’s not even go the route of the number of Christian denominations. Each one believes his right and you wrong. Where on earth is this universal manual for mankind? I am afraid it’s in someone’s bank account. Yes your beliefs is making others rich. As Richard Halverson stated: “Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise.” Religion was merely enforced to control people like you. In the absence of religion you would probably not be a nice person – you would probably be out of control. Hence the need to keep people like you subdued, and part of the flock. The blind leading the blind! A flock that’s on the road to nowhere. Religion has done absolutely nothing for mankind – it only helped separate them.

The point that seems to tie up all of these discussions is how can we explain the complexity of our existence without a GOD component. Truly we can’t. This is why I will never claim to be atheist. However, this doesn’t mean that all organizations claiming to be “in the service of GOD” are actually doing so. If we learn anything from history it should be that there is no form of power that has never been corrupted by man. To me, this song is directed at the Roman Catholic Church and there constant abuse of power throughout history.

First to address the of topic part of this comment:
“The point that seems to tie up all of these discussions is how can we explain the complexity of our existence without a GOD component. Truly we can’t. [a] (…) However, this doesn’t mean that all organizations claiming to be “in the service of GOD” are actually doing so [b]. If we learn anything from history it should be that there is no form of power that has never been corrupted by man. [c]”

There are two arguments from ignorance [a] & [c], two presuppositions [a] & [b] and to top it off an amazing attempt of shifting the burden of proof [a]. Five for the price of one (well, three really)

Back to topic:
The only valid and relevant statement in this verbal discharge of words and sentences is:
“To me, this song is directed at the Roman Catholic Church and there constant abuse of power throughout history.”

Although the catholic church, may have been used as the narrative. Personally, I think it is directed at any form of dogmatic, faith based, hierarchical organisation.

In addition to Grumpy’s statement, even if we were to assume there is a creator, how do we know that it was your God who created us? Using the ratio of current population to the total number of people who have ever lived, we get an estimate of 63,000 religious groups throughout human history. Your God has a chance of 1 in 28,000,000 as the creator of humanity. Also, though science may be flawed, the bible is even more so. Why do you believe in a God that has murdered at least 25 million people (bible numbers only, no estimates), anyway? Whereas Satan, supposedly evil one, has only killed less than 10 humans. That is a staggering difference, and I am not even counting in the animal sacrifices he desired worshippers give him.

1. I would just like to add on that there may be no reason for our existence at all. All these complex cells and what not may simply be byproducts of multiple processes. Trial and error, wherein different elements and things got eliminated in the process. Just a theory.
2. You could argue that God works through science to create things and what not, but I’d like to remind you that it is in nowhere mentioned in the bible that processes like evolution took place. ( I think )
3. If God exists, then how and when did he come into existence?
4. The bible is a compilation of stories from different people over the ages. Many of the stories, especially those about genesis, would have been passed down through word of mouth – and we all know how inaccurate that is. Hence, I think it would be safe the assume that many things in the bible are exaggerated and inaccurate.
5. Let’s just assume that God exists. He denied mankind of knowledge and punished Adam and Eve for exercising free will. You could say that they went against God’s orders, but the knowledge they gained wasn’t harmful in any way. Also, he put the Forbidden Fruit in plain sight and told them not to eat it. That serves no purpose whatsoever. ( and now I can’t be bothered to rant anymore so I’m just going to end here )

Karisama, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” – Proverbs 26:4-5. Many of us have followed the first part of this proverb and have not even answered you, Kamisama. I think I’ll go ahead and follow the second part, however. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know there had to be a creator. Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could. Do you exist? That alone proves there must be a creator. Your (or my) disbelief does not change this fact (try to imagine how scary it would be if our opinions and ideas changed reality in our everyday lives). We can accept the truth or deny it; the truth is still the truth. And as for the 1 in 28,000,000 chance that you give the God of the Bible to be the Creator, you do realize that is still a chance. According to you, there is a possibility that the God of the Bible is the Creator of the world. And if he is Creator, then he is also the law-maker, and we are all his servants. Does this not cause any anxiety in your heart? Are you really content with your 1 in 28 million statistic? Next, as for that “science may be flawed”, science itself cannot be flawed; our beliefs in science are what are so often askew. As for the Bible being “even more so” flawed, given I am no great apologist, I would recommend the writings and works of James White, a former so-called atheist who could only deny the truth for so long, from Alpha and Omega Ministries, found at https://www.aomin.org . As for your next point, I would dare to ask, how do you, Karisama, define murder? If you claim we cannot have certainty in anything, what defines not only murder, but more generally, right and wrong? As for your claim that Satan is a smaller offender than God, it was Satan who, in Genesis 3, deceived Eve, leading her and Adam to sin, thus casting all of mankind (the number of which is slightly larger than 10 or 25 million) into a state of sin and death. Finally, you claim, more or less, that animals and humans are equal. Let me get this straight: you believe it to be illogical to believe in a Creator, but perfectly logical to believe that we are no different than mammals, birds, and other creatures. I really do feel sorry for you; for you and the so many others on this site that have cast aside all logic and good reasoning in an effort to claim that there is no God and no absolute truth. I hope the Sovereign Creator of us all opens your eyes to the truth. I’m so thankful he chose to give me sight when I was blind and dead in my sins. He is good! In closing, all I can say is that not one of us will stand before God on the day of judgement and deny his existence, power, or worthiness, and we will certainly NOT be calling him a murderer.

I feel sorry for you. Every day in America 2500 people think they will be alive the following day. Your only a leader of one son and you have not learned that in order to be a great leader you must first know how to follow. Those who bow their knee and life now will not be forced to later as eventually EVERY knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus is Lord. I hesitated to get into this as I don’t see this blog about this but your ignorant statements cannot go without correction. You are free to tough this world out but let me assure you there are many tougher then you who find we are not meant for it. When life rips your soul out just remember there is one who loves you and will help you if you but ask.

Andre I could have faith my shitty team will win, faith in a friend or lover that they’ll do well.

Believing in something without proof is not in itself bad (now if you see overwhelming evidence against it, then yes that’s blind faith), but sadly this goes to why children lose their ability to dream and imagine. Dreaming big, having faith in things aren’t all bad. Try to tell someone you love and respect “hey I have faith you can do x” that is really tough, it’ll really help build them up and who knows, they may do it.

Everyone seems to be assuming that the interpretation of the lyrics is correct. I don’t think it is. It’s more likely to be about Napoleon and his rise and fall – makes far more sense and relates to the cover of the album too – further evidence.

You say there is no God…. how can you prove that? You say that there was no Jesus and he did not come back from the dead. You say that therefore the Bible cannot be a historical book. What then do the dead sea scrolls do? Jesus is a historical figure and he is PROVEN to have lived on the earth, and he was witnessed by over 500 people after his resurrection. Also why would the disciples and so many christians give their life to something they knew was fake. Also, the Bible and Christianity is different from every other religion in the world, do the research. Also you say evolution is fact, what make this a fact? There is no evidence and as it has been said before, these “experiments” have been incorrect, you say to give you evidence, I challenge you to give me evidence.

I am not the one asserting the existence of god or creation. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. I prefer to remain skeptical. So far the evidence you have provided has been debunked repeatedly over the years. DO THE RESEARCH.

Lenny doesn’t your statement above make you more agnostic than atheistic really?

I find most scientists, and highly educated people who aren’t themes religiously hating on religion (due to bad experiences, etc) to be agnostic by definition. Because like you say, there is absolutely no evidence against God. Now if we find the end of our Galexy and all Galaxies someday and no heaven then I can move from an agnostic who has weighted the evidence and sided on believing to atheist, but just as hard as it is to prove God (why believers call it faith) it is equally impossible and futile to try to disprove God.

A lot of really intelligent people, do go down the atheist path, purely out of emotion, because they presumably had a bad experience with religion, so would rather argue there is no God, because they’ve come to believe religion itself is so bad, and that’s sad for intellectual thought.

Agreed; also, the line that says
“once you know there was never, never an honest word”
is actually
“once you go…” or maybe “once you’re gone” (same meaning), which invalidates the interpretation of that line as a claim that religion was only many lies told to the people
I would like to point out on the side that the view that religion and Christianity were just lies told to con people and abuse power came from the poeple who weren’t really Christians saying that they were and using religion as a mechanism to fulfill greed

why would Chris just randomly decide to make a song about Napoleon, i highly doubt it. idk about you but i would prefer to make a song about my own experiences and not some guy who tried to conquer the world over 100 years ago.

I do not think this is a peice of anti religion at all. I think it is a very very clever, infact brilliant reflection on the life of a King, the cruelty he perpetuated on others, and how it all came to naught. In the end, and as it states at the start, he now sweeps the streets – I dont think this is literal I think it means he no longer has the kingdom or his power. In fact, his short and cruel reign did nothing but harm and undermine his own divinity “I know Saint Peter wont call my name” – Chris himself said its about “Youve been a naughty boy..Your not on the list” in other words, he is not going to heaven, because he has spread cruelty and injustice. At the end of the film clip, all the band members are kind of dissolving away, or at least parts of them are – they (at least the King anyway) have been tricked by dark forces and are now helpless as parts of themselves are stolen and lost. The whole tone of Triumph and Inspiration throughout the film clip is so perfect in its irony – the whole thing was a terrible mistake and the euphoria of defeating your enemies and creating fear in others was very very short lived. In the end, it is you that suffers.

I agree with you. I’m not sure that even Coldplay knows this but the ‘sweeps the streets I used to own’ is actually about a greek general who lost a battle to Persia and literally ended up living on the streets as a janitor. It was documented in a NatGeo doc a long time ago but I can’t track down the battle or the general’s name.

I totally thought this song was like about Louis XIV!!! Perhaps I interpreted the lyrics too literally. LOL. I thought the revolutionaries had him and he was going to meet his fate (the guillotine) and they were waiting for his head on a silver plate. He was a powerful ruler. lol. wow, i’m laughing at myself.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion life would be pretty boring without it. However having said that this is a wonderful piece of music that doesn’t come right out and displays the writers personal opinion of what they stand for. The world could use a little more of that spirit considering both the religious and atheists shove their beliefs onto people. Now I’m not trying to start a debate but deep down we all know this to be true. Let with this song you can have any mindset and enjoy it no matter what you believe in.

Don’t be ridiculous. When someone needs “god” that cannot be proven anyway. It means that person is the one with the hole in their heart. They need something to fill it up, so they seek the proverbial thing….an imaginary friend. When some claim that they have something they called “god”, it’s because they are inadequate. Not the other way around. Scientists have not identify mental “god” and religion as a form of mental illness. People are who have religion, or incomplete. They are lost, so they find comfort in a ghost, essentially. When someone loses a family member they were close with, they will always imagine the person is still around, why, they are traumatized. Notice, the indigents of the world gravitate to religion, because they are traumatized by poverty. The poor is always looking for “god”! They are generally uninformed, they don’t have the things to inform them.. When natural disasters come, they are the first to be affected. Their infrastructure is always weak, and unsustainable. They can’t afford health care, so they always succumb to their diseases. Their “god” either dislike them, or doesn’t exist. And, by the way, most people who are Atheist, had religion at one time. Parents force this nonsense down our throats. I was a evangelical christian. Was an evangelist. I got up one day, and thought to myself, god is either a fucking moron, sadistical, or doesn’t exist. The rest is history. I am most content and have been for years….I am a apathetic Atheist. .I run 3 miles a day….have a great job, is an hardcore Vegan……financially doing well, have love, peace, contentment, compassion for my fellow animal, one of the most honest person you ever want to meet, very moral person…..I could go on and on. Know something before you place your feet in your stupid mouth. Bye!

Ah! Ah! Tanner, his loss of faith (if indeed so) is actually a great “blessing”. If so, he can now indeed find himself, because there is no need to look for something (God?) that is not really there. How ironic?

Now, say there is no God. How did we get here? How did our animals get here? How is our anatomy so perfect? How are we the perfect distance from the sun. How is the moon the perfect distance from us? You atheists and agnostics ask where my proof is. Where is your proof that I’m wrong? You cannot prove that there is no God? There are miracles all around us that prove that my God is real. Just look at yourself, look at your children, look at your pets, look around your house, and look in the sky. All proof.

We are not the ones making these claims about the existence of sky fairies etc. You are. Therefore the onus is on you to come up with the evidence. The more extraordinary your claim, the more extraordinary needs to be your evidence.

We just express a non-belief. We have nothing to prove. Anyway, science has taken all the “evidence” you have come up with thus far and shown how ridiculous it all is.

When I look at my house and the sky [I don’t have pets or children] all I see is a house and the sky and off course the beauty of it. I don’t see no god creatures.

Dear Lenny, please Tell me how the cell, with all its complex inter cell functions, evolved in detail. Detail that explains how every moving part within the cell evolved at the same exact time and how all those cells formed not just an organ or organ system but a organism that uses multiple cells, cell systems,organs and organ systems all at one time. knowing that without all those systems evolving at the same exact time, complex life couldn’t exist. If you can answer that question in convincing detail down to every mitochondria and protein synthesizing receptor (not only will you be the only atheist in the world with a viable answer ) but i will come out of my dark place in religion; excepting it was all by impossible chance. I have been awaiting the responses from other atheists and ,sadly,none have responded.
Please feel free to respond in length.
-Dr. August-

Nice try Dr. August. I’m convinced by the bounteous scientific evidence presented for evolution, because I’m not obligated to accept it on faith alone. You on the other hand accept religious-based models for the creation of life based on faith only. I’m no expert on the subject. If you would really like to come out of your dark place as you so smugly say, why not look at the evidence provided. The interwebs have many many resources, and there are libraries full of information readily available to you. But I guess it’s more comfortable to sit in your dark place, right?

Lenny, I think you’ll find that evidence points far away from evolution. I’m sorry I don’t have any sources to list but as you said “the interwebs have many many resources” which you can look up for yourself. Science is all about disproof, and I believe evolution has been thoroughly disproven. I haven’t yet heard a better theory than the existence of God, granted this is coming from a born and raised Christian who goes to a Christian private school. But, don’t you go claiming that I just haven’t heard any other theories because we are taught about evolution in school, but as a theory, not the truth which is how I think it should be. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they should teach Christianity in science (maybe a little more accurately in World History).

There is something a really smart person told me once, you can’t argue with ignorance and ridiculousness. Thats what we are doing, we give you proof, you say no, if something doesn’t fit into what you want it to be then it doesn’t exist, I’m just praying that God will touch you because God can soften the hardest hearts.

Our anatomy is far from perfectly designed! Why do men have nipples?! Why are the organs of reproduction so close to the organs of defecation? There are many other examples of poor design. The ‘designer’ should get back to the drawing board pronto.

I know I mentioned this before somewhere in the thread but I am going to repeat myself.
As you study the Bible you will find it strange and unreasonable that an omnipotent an omniscient God could have created such a poorly thought out world. God’s son had to die for God’s lack of forethought in design, and Christian believers must feel lifelong remorse that God’s son was killed for such imperfection.

“God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” In the beginning God gave the first people free will to choose between right or wrong. He was not going to force them to choose right. Because of human fault, we were all born into sin and deserve punishment. But even though we were sinners, God still wanted to have a relationship with us. He sent His blameless Son to take this punishment for us so through His Son’s death and resurrection, we may be redeemed. It is His wonderful grace and love that saved us.

Personally – I think indoctrination is dangerous. That is exactly how your beliefs originated. Why aren’t you a Buddhist, or Mormon, or JW, et al. … the reason is because you were indoctrinated during your impressionable years. Don’t always throw the usual lines of: scripture so and so says we not allowed to question blah blah blah. I realize people stop thinking too soon. It just seems worse with religious groups. Their thinking process grinds to a halt. Sad but true!

Who said we aren’t allowed to question. I have asked and I have received answers.I have reason to believe in the Bible. For example, the Dead Sea Scroll containing the book of Isaiah is dated back to 150-100 B.C. (or B.C.E.). The book of Isaiah contains multiple prophecies that come true when Jesus fulfills them. I can believe the Gospels because they were written down within the lifetimes of people who would have witnessed Jesus’ life. These books would have been denied if they were not accurate. There is a clear example of fulfilled prophecy showing that there is more to this than just a guy being crucified.

Jesus couldn’t control who he was born by or where he was born. He couldn’t control a soldier stabbing him in the side after he was crucified. What kind of guy tries to get crucified? He would have had to in order to fulfill all the prophecies. What did he have to gain? If he was just insane, why do 2 billion people believe in him. I wouldn’t expect the mentally unstable to convince 2 billion people that he is the Messiah (more actually, just about 2 billion are alive today). Also the book of Isaiah was written about 500 years before Jesus was born. The Dead Sea Scroll one was just 150 years before about. It isn’t the actual one Isaiah physically wrote down, just a copy, but it matches the one we had already when we found the Dead Sea scroll one almost exactly.

Oh yes, this man, mad or not, tricked many people. Even his closest friends, the Apostles, we’re so convinced he was the true Messiah that many of them were crucified for their fath in Jesus. This man Jesus was one of those uneducated Galileans too. Where did he get the know how to do all this. What a miracle!

No, NOT arrogant at all…… Ability or lack of is not necessary to criticise.

Are we arrogant when we criticise art? Do we really have to create a piece of art which is just as eh… ‘artful’, before we can? (of course we also be hugely arrogant to criticise our leaders as we haven’t led a nation etc. etc. etc.)

Well, you may think you have a point, but you fail to see the big picture. There were potentially many “earths” that could be made. Imagine an infinite amount of monkeys typing on an infinite amount of type writers. Over a period of time, one eventually could become a best selling book. I’m going to assume you know about multi-universe theories and that the universe is very large, and expanding, therefore there are many chances for a great outcome which would equal an ideal planet. And for how life happened, you should have learned about that in school. Religion was originally made because one could not explain something; now we have science to explain these things.

FOOLS!!! Science is merely observation and data. The more we discover in science the more questions we create for ourselves. If science could explain these things we would have all the answers already.

What gives anymore support to the multi-universes theory than to the existence of God. This theory is made by people looking for an excuse for God not to exist. I would suggest reading objection #2, reason #2 of Lee Strobel’s, a former atheist’s, A Case for Faith.

Scootaloo well there is much science can’t explain and most scientists believe we may never be able to explain or find. And that’s ok.

People who say evolution contradicts the Genesis narrative when viewed as allegory (I.e 7 days = 7 periods) fail to see there’s no way the writers would have known then that life started in the sea and evolved to land. Or there were other land creatures before humans.

Looking at the beauty of a flower is not concrete evidence that a God exists. In fact, if a complex universe and complex life was created then this creator must be infinitely more complex; more complex than you and I can ever imagine. The analogy often used is that of a chair – the chair must have had a creator (craftsman). So if such an infinitely complex creator exists then how did this deity come into existence? Think about this very carefully, the complexity of a deity is infinitely more complex than a flower – yet this deity just appeared out of nowhere or always existed – yet you and I had to be created! On the other hand, do you also look at the ‘beauty’ of the HIV virus, cancer, or the beauty of the deformities in nature? Or what about the beauty of some religious fanatic destroying the world in His name. Or the possibility that the earth will be hit by a massive asteroid destroying all life on earth. Is this okay considering everything was supposedly created by Him? The existence of a God is unsupported — it’s just an assertion. We have no particular reason to believe this. There are no fairies or gods out there to save us – we on our own. We have to save ourselves! I once believed in Santa Claus. I would often feel his presence – watching me to see if I was good enough for the presents I desired. When a classmate informed me of the truth about Santa, I did not believe him until I questioned it further. After discovering the truth I was shocked! The universe and everything inside of it is governed by the principles of science. Supernatural entities do not enter the equation. Finally, don’t believe my opinion regarding the absurdity of religion – go and discover this for yourself. Read, question…ad infinitum!

Well an asteroid has not hit earth yet that has destroyed every living thing so I get that you said possibility by that is not concrete evidence. According to Christianity, we live in a fallen world and the HIV virus and cancer were never intended. They are not part of God’s ultimate plan and will not exist in the new heaven and new earth. This is my belief’s perspective on this, not concrete evidence I understand, but it explains everything just as well or better than what you believe (which I assume is evolution). I’m sorry that I didn’t answer everything you said but I’m probably not the best person to ask anyway. Good day.

We are the perfect distance from the sun because if we weren’t we wouldn’t be here! There is every chance that there were multiple planets just like ours that failed because they were too close or too far from the sun. It’s not that we were lucky, it’s that in an infinite universe there’s always going to be at least one planet the gets the correct amount of everything to harbour life. (well, technically, in an infinite universe there would be infinite planets able to harbour life as complex as ours.)

As Douglas Adams puts it: “This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”

The definition of “what found is” is completely based on where/who you are as a person and your life. However, I would even argue with this, different, viewpoint (because I don’t think we should be limited by saying that “I ––– am a person who CANnot find God” or whatever. What I’m trying to say is I disagree. Many people begin to find who they’ve been and start to find out who they can become in a way they NEVER could have imagined once they find God.

It’s actually not ironic at all. Because if you aren’t looking for good you are in fact looking for yourself… which becomes an endless circle because you are trying to find something that is.. it already just IS. With God you can be something DEEPER than what there already is.

It’s not about evidence. It’s about philosophy. If you look for historical evidence with one philosophy in mind you’ll draw conclusions one way, and with another philosophy you’ll see/find historical evidence in another way or completely insignificant.

It’d be cool if you didn’t sneer at other peoples faith. Maybe you could trust that they have something that they enjoy and love they have in life.

God is there. He is not theoretical. And me, blatantly saying this over an internet forum won’t change you, I’m sure. I know that I do not have the authority to change you. But I do hope that someday you’ll have an urge to look beyond what you currently think.

I’m living in South Africa, a country at the foot of the African continent which is deparately trying to claw its way out of third world status, but failing thanks to our greedy, power-hungry politicians.

“What I’m trying to say is I disagree. Many people begin to find who they’ve been and start to find out who they can become in a way they NEVER could have imagined once they find God.”

I was religious once, but when I abandoned it, I then truly discovered who I am, and saw the world in new eyes for the first time – the real world.

“God is there. He is not theoretical. And me, blatantly saying this over an internet forum won’t change you, I’m sure. I know that I do not have the authority to change you. But I do hope that someday you’ll have an urge to look beyond what you currently think.”

No, you balatantly saying it over an internet connection, or over and over again, does not and will not, make it true. Possession of authority does convey the power to make a false thing, true. Only presentation of testable evidence can change me. Strangely, I did have that urge to look beyond what I think, and guess what? That’s when I realised what a fraud religion and gods and worship and faith really is.

Some would say their freedom is in having found God in their lives, depending only on yourself and working for your own selfish needs can be a very lonely place as everyone who is in that boat eventually finds out. It’s a strong form of narcissism and for those I feel sorry.

Why do many assume that those who don’t believe in God are working for their own selfish needs? I depend on many others and try hard not to be selfish because it’s the right thing to do, not because I’m trying to get to heaven. Because that would be rather self-serving and selfish, would it not?

So, how can you tell from where the materials exist in the first place? How can it be created? Materials are strictly bond to the laws of nature, so it can’t create itself. If it can’t create itself, so how can they exist? There must be at least a supernatural beings (as the opposite of the natural beings -matter) that creates the matter, as the supernatural beings aren’t bond by laws of nature, so it can create the matter. And how the supernatural beings exist? It is just exist in the first place, as it doesn’t bond with any law. And any results wouldn’t bigger than cause, isn’t it? So do materials. They are the results of the supernatural beings, which can create material, and itself, from nothing. And like the number one, which came from zero, that can form other numbers, so it is.

PS: Don’t say anything about religion. Is is just a man-made, so the real truth in it is just blurry. I say about the ‘supernatural entity’, not to mention anything that religion has spoken. Yet I just say about the entity, not to mention for the fellowship and rituals and or laws that religions create. I believe in the spiritual existence, but I’m questioning about religion.

Religion is the biggest bullshit story known to civilization. Religon is a creation meant to chain the masses to mediocrity and GUILT. And, once it is defeated we will know the true meaning of freedom. Because if there were no God there could be no fear. Then what?

Being an Anti Christ or Atheist or whatever you want too call it, is the biggest Bullshit Story!!! You obviously have no feelings and proably will be just fine when you go to hell so good luck with that!!! I believe Chris is just confused about his religon I believe he has studied the religon subject sooo much he has became confused religon is a very tricky subject. I just believe he should proably just become a Non-Denominational person because maybe then he can find himself. I wish him good luck and will pray for him and you. You especially will need it.

I beg to differ (not literally… but I WILL differ). Again, your perception is biased based upon your definition and most likely your experience with religion. I hate religion and I love Jesus, and I believe because I believe in Jesus I have been set FREE FROM GUILT itself, as guilt is evil. Motive shouldn’t come from irreverent, dark fear. Hope should drive us to become better people. Religion might promote mediocrity and fear but that is not the essence of God. He isn’t about ritual. Don’t confuse the two. I have met more people without FAITH (if that’s what you mean) who promote more guilt, fear, and mediocrity BY FAR than those who SINCERELY follow God/Jesus (but who AREN’T religious).

Claire – much of what we do as people is done in the name of God; Irishmen blow each other up in his name, Arabs blow themselves up in his name, Imams and Ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people’s sex lives in his name. Jewish shochets cut the throats of live animals in his name, and don’t forget the bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors and culture-destroying missionaries were all done in his name. Even the South African pre 1994 apartheid war was done in his name. The Roman Catholic Church has a rather poor record with regards to burning things that didn’t concur with Holy Doctrine. For centuries the very mention of ancient myths or the practice of juggling or sleight of hand would be a one way ticket for a freethinking individual to be burned alive at the stake as a witch or heretic. I think it’s pretty clear why the Catholic Church became so popular. All these atrocities were at one time justified from scripture. Many scriptural practices were taught as the truth so why today has it become extinct? Extremist and conservative believers in the same faith cannot even reach consensus on what should be taken literally or figuratively. Lastly, what moral values have you learnt from the Old Testament?

It was the PEOPLE, right? They just using the name of God, supernatural (spiritual) entity, to justify them for their greed/egos. The spiritual entity itself doesn’t make any mistakes. The HUMANS made the mistakes. So you can’t blame the spiritual entity because it is existed, as same like you blame earth because it supports the live of the people who killed another people.

Lenny, “bad person does something in name or religion=Religion is bad” is tricky and may be rationally incngruent to say it wouldn’t happen without religion (see 2nd paragraph). Under that judgment of religions validity theory, every religious charity, orphanage, hospital, etc (and there are many many would mean religious at the end of the day is a net good.

Trust me I’ve studied the flawed human nature enough to know those people would find other reasons to blow people up and kill others even if there were no religion. The fact those inherantly evil people use religion, something that in theory should and in many cases does motivate humanity to do good- guarentees them a special place in hell (should there be a hell and should it have special places, haha).

If man finally reached the point where all gods were abandoned, it would signify true emancipation, true freedom. Yes, and then what. If man were then free of fear, would he go on to achieve true greatness or would he succumb to base animal instincts to wipe each other out. My personal belief is that if we reach the point of true emancipation, then it would signify that we have finally developed as a species to our true potential; and the base animal menatality mentality would have been eradicated.

Before I begin, I’m going to call to attention something that I’ve seen common in many of these comments. There is absolute truth. Truth is anything but relative. There is right, there is wrong, and there is no in between. What you think is true is either right or wrong. What I think is true is either right or wrong. End of story.

So basically, a lot of people have been saying that man experiences true freedom when he gets rid of his religious hindrances. From my recent theological and philosophical studies, I have come to the conclusion that if there is no religion or belief system, there is nothing to base morals and standards on. As is quite obvious, there must be SOME standards, or else anyone could go around doing anything and everything and chaos would run rampant. So if there is no religion, what do you base these standards on? What man feels is right? That is completely abstract. What one person might feel is right might not feel right to another person. So that won’t work. Without religion, what else is there?

This is why I believe in the Almighty God of Christianity. In the Bible, He sets forth morals and standards that are good and true. The Ten Commandments are part of our law today. However, people have also been saying that the Bible contradicts itself. In that case, how can you be sure these morals are valid? Well, they can only be valid if the Bible is aboslutely true. I certainly believe the Bible is absolutely, wholly, and perfectly true! If you think about the Bible as a whole and include an analysis of science and historical evidence, you really can come to this conclusion. I will explain this some other time (that’s a promise) because right now I’m supposed to be doing schoolwork.

In the midst of all my theology, I forgot to thank you for your essay. It really helped to clear things up about the lyrics. I’ve been trying to evaluate the worldview of this song for a while now and your essay really helped me to understand it. Thanks again! (And now I really need to do my schoolwork or I won’t be prepared for class tomorrow.)

“Without religion, what else is there?” You’d be surprized how much there really is without religion; you just need to broaden your horizons.

Your conclusion that “chaos would run rampant” without religion or god is rather funny considering the state of the world right now with god/religion still very much part of it; with social upheavals on every continent, war, murder, general crime, and some of it caused by religion itself. So where does that leave your theory?

Believing something does not make it true. Truth is scientifically verifiable. Religion is not scientifically verifiable, the bible is not scientifically verifiable.

You sound like a reasonably intelligent person; though I’m not sure at what school level you are in at the moment, since you just mention homework. If you’re interested in learning more about the “real” world; why not read some of the following resources which will answer some of your questions above about morality etc. Try the following links:

Before I comment on your web pages, I had a question. What do you believe regarding truth? Do you believe that truth is relative depending on the individual? Or, do you believe that truth can be determined only by science?

I don’t have enough time at the moment to give you a lengthy, well thought out answer, but I wanted to quickly clear up something I said. When I claimed that chaos would run rampant without religion, what I meant was that chaos would run rampant without Christianity. This was my mistake. I am completely aware that war, murder, etc are often caused by religion (an obvious example: Islamic terrorists), and I appologize for not thinking before sending my comment.

I was rereading my first comment, and I think you were mistaken. What I actually claimed was that chaos would run wild if there were no standards on which to base morality. Then I concluded that these standards come from religion. However, you are very right that many of our current problems are caused by religion.

I appologize for the late reply. My studies have been keeping me excessively busy.

I read through some of your websites (I did not have enough time to read them all). Please correct me if I am mistaken because I do not want to take anything out of context. I gathered from this information that standards are relative to the individual, and people simply create their own meaning. However, to accept this view you have to assume that human nature is ultimately perfect or perfectible. If this is the case, where does evil come from?

you have to assume that human nature is ultimately perfect or perfectible. If this is the case, where does evil come from?

Considering that we are evolving all the time, I would say that human nature is perfectable. Can perfection be reached? Maybe not. Consider that perfection and even evil is relative. What you would call perfection could be someone else’s work-in-progress. Absolutes are very tricky to discuss, and actually undesirable.

Religious doctrine professes that man was created “perfectly” in god’s image. In all honesty, the state of man today is in deterioration. So, is the perfect creation is degenerating. The theist may conclude that this is so because man has abandoned god. But, if something can deteriorate/degenerate, then it could not have been “perfect” in the first place, now could it?

@ Anonymous: Religion is not based on reason but on faith, but faith does not advance knowledge it is the search for SECURITY not truth (my emphasis). The search for truth requires an open mind. Fear of death motivates most religious commitment and it’s alleviated by assurances of an afterlife.Finally, I hope you do not follow the following moral standard viz. The Lord said to Moses” that “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death” (Lev. 24:13-16)

I believe that faith in God is the most reasonable thing. Also much of the old law has been thrown away since the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew 9:17 Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Hi Anonymous
Anonymous
If you believe every word in the Bible to be true, including upholding the ten commandments then I ask you; why do Christians praise the Ten Commandments, but ignore the Corruption of Blood clause? Christians also ignore the other commandments beyond the first ten. For example, “The Lord said to Moses” that “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death” (Lev. 24:13-16). Almost any decent Christian today would say that this was an unjust law. But it is the law of God nonetheless! After all, the Bible is the Word of God! Fundamentalist and some conservative Christians still interpret much of the Bible literally. Christians pick and choose not according to the example of their God, but according to their own notion of what is just. So is learning moral values not a product of our experiences in life that inevitably determines good or bad, or is it scripturally dependant? Scripture will always have a different meaning to different people which will establish more and more religious sects, extremists, fanatics, ad infinitum

I would like to impart a mental image in regards to the commandments referred to as the Ten Commandments with religion being the basis of morals.

I imagine the israelites must have been killing, stealing and perjuring without consequences, right up to moment they got to Sinai, where suddenly all that fun was no longer allowed.

How disappointed they must have been because clearly their society based on murder, plunder and lying had worked so well for them until then. I can visualise their sad faces after being told the party was over.

On a serious note, I have a feeling all those things were already pretty much not tolerated, before a god told them they were bad. Any group having that (killing etc…) as their moral standards will more or less immediately disintegrate, i.e. no people for Moses to lead anywhere, let alone out of Egypt.

P.S.
If you want to know what the actual Ten Commandments are (i.e. referred to as The Ten Commandments) read Exodus 34:14 to 28.

You will notice the lack of mentioning not to kill or steal, However, don’t boil the first born kid (baby goat) in its mother’s milk, apparently that is very, very naughty.

PPS.
Claiming our ‘laws’ or ‘morals’ are based on the other ‘ten commandments’ (Exodus 20) clearly does not live in a western civilisation (or most other ones for that matter). Two out of ten is not a passing mark (and killing is not one of them).

I wonder if God actually feels guilty with all the killings done in his name! Most importantly, I wonder why he doesn’t intervene again. Afterall he walked amongst men two thousand years ago telling mankind what to do and how to behave. I think it is high time he pays us a visit – we have advanced a lot since the stone-age so this time we will be more prepared in analysing miracles and supernatural phenomena. Then again some religious groups say his intervention comes in the form of natural disasters. Oh boy!

If Jesus ever did return, I think he’ll be killed again, perhaps shot this time, such is the malice of man. And oh, don’t worry about god. He is capable off all things, or so they say… So he is capable of feeling neither guilt nor sorrow. Such is the conundrum created for the persona of god by believers.

Why would God feel guilt? We act out of our own free will and then blame God for not making it right, we can make it right just as we can clean up our own mess at home. It requires work and unfortunately we don’t want to work, we want to create chaos and then blame God for it all. Death is a part of life, if we are called to die in a natural disaster then so be it, don’t hate God for natural disasters, science tells us where a natural disaster is most likely to happen, we choose to live where we choose to live, if you don’t want to die in a flood, move away from low ground, if you don’t want to die by an erupted volcano, don’t live where there is a volcano etc. If you don’t want to die, well, tough luck because it’s coming sooner or later.

It has come to my attention that the masses, especially in the Western world, view the eradication of “Religion” as the path to emancipation. But nevertheless, the culprits who used religion to their aggrandizement (think Adolf Hitler,Richard the Lion-hearted, Islamic Extremists, KKK etc) are removed from the public harrassment and rejection rightfully due to them. Let’s not kid ourselves. A society without Religion is just as dangerous as one without. Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, among many others, massacred millions all in the name of an Atheistic state. The problem lies not on this substance that so many gladly finger-point at. The true problem lies at the myriad of uneducated people. For without self-education, one knows nothing. And if one knows nothing, they will fall for anything. Religion, Nationalism, Science and “Revolution” are but the opium for the multitudes!

These culprits you speak of didn’t use religion, they were fanatics and fundamentalists. Even more dangerous than your average run of the mill type of religious person. Fundamentalists become so wrapped up in scripture that they go completely blind!.

The idea of god is inbuilt into man’s substance. You can’t just wish him away. He created everything and owns everything including us. Our problem has been well annunciated by the previous writers and that is, we hate Him. We talk about religion being the noose around our necks but who killed the son of god, none other than the religious. We are the enemies of God because of our sins. God is not the problem, religion is. Jesus did not come to set up a religion but to give His life as a sacrifice for our sins. We made up the religion! You want true emancipation, true freedom? You need to be forgiven. Simple as that. God has made the way possible through the death of Jesus on the cross. His death will substitute your eternal damnation if you will submit to him and believe the truth God has revealed about His son. You’re right, religion needs to get out of the way so the pure unadulterated truth can be seen. We need to get back into sync with God, only then can we be truly free.

Steve I know I am repeating myself;
As you study the Bible you will find it strange and unreasonable that an omnipotent an omniscient God could have created such a poorly thought out world. God’s son had to die for God’s lack of forethought in design, and Christian believers must feel lifelong remorse that God’s son was killed for such imperfection. Furthermore look at the moral message of the Bible – it is contradictory – violent in some places an unbelievably loving in others. If God wanted to reveal himself He would find an unquestionable way of doing this. Any divine message would be clear rather than in a strange code that only linguists can interpret. A standardized life manual is definitely lacking! I am so tired of hearing the words, “the wrath of God”; “eternal damnation and hellfire”.. blah blah blah. Although if this is what is needed for you to be subservient then I feel sorry for you. Do you really believe that an all powerful eternal God is bothered about you standing up or fighting to uphold his name?

That is your version amongst a thousand other versions (religions). They can’t all be right but they can all be wrong. What makes your comments above true and all the others not true? It is common for most of us to live our lives sheltered from the diversity of other religions or other ‘true’ denominations.
Before the birth of Christianity we have many of the traits, characteristics of other much older mythical figures which were similar to the characteristics and life of Jesus. The worship of a miracle working, walking, talking god-man who brings salvation to mankind were also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus. At the heart of these mythical figures was a male entity; he was part god and part human – often referred to as a ‘god-man’. The biographies of these god-men were consistent from religion to religion. The main difference among the faiths was his name. Herewith a few examples
Alexandria: Aion
Egypt: Osiris and Horus
Asia Minor: Attis
Babylonia: Antiochus
Greece: Dionysus, Asclepius and Prometheus
Italy: Bacchus
Persia: Mithras

So, my question is; what makes yours necessarily true? In my opinion Jesus is a myth handed down over the centuries.

Steve, if by “inbuilt into man’s substance” you mean inbuilt into our gentic code, then I would to a certain extent agree with you. There have been logically constructed arguments favoring this particular hypothesis, but only in so far as the idea of god aided in man’s evolutional evolutionary development is concerned. The hypothesis postulates that man’s first attempt (philosophically) to explain the world in the absence of science, was through religion and the cocept of “god.” It is postulated that this aided in our evolutionary development, but now that science fills in most, if not all the gaps, the human has no need for the primitive concept of a “god” any longer.

We have advanced to the stage where “god” is of no more use for our development. Rational people have abandoned the useless baggage that is god. We have accepted the next step in our evolutionary development. Get over it; there is no god, and no son of god, and no sins that I need to be forgiven for. Learn to live, not remain in submission for the rest of your life and be enslaved by an invisible, irrational concept.

Lenny, I don’t think you’re as smart as YOU think you are. Wait til you’re brought to your knees and you have no one there to help you, for your mistake is putting your faith in yourself and others who are only putting their faith in themselves too. lol

Jack, if you do not know why it’s important to live and why life can have meaning imparted to it by yourself, why do you even bother sticking around? Go on then, if you’re so eager to get to your “afterlife,” why don’t you just make it happen?

Thats a terrible thing to say. Wether you beleve in the existence of god or not doesn’t mean you basically tell someone to “go ahead and make it happen”. You are being extremely rude. Explain you points without getting angry. This is ridiculous.

Does God exist? No one can tell each other if God does or God doesn’t.
Does it really make a difference. Am I going to bash your head because you don’t believe in God? No. Are you going to bash my head because I believe?
The argument is pointless. We should on the other hand respect people’s
ideas and beliefs or non-beliefs. Atheist people have good points and so
do people with faith.

I believe in God because of personal experiences. Non-believers
can’t take away what I have felt and seen. And I can’t forced them to to belief, but would love for them to listen. My life is different, my Culture is different and my relationship with people are different.

I do think science is amazing and the bible contains great stories. I do think everything that was written in the bible more than likely happen scientifically in some way or form. Other things, well, only one’s individual faith explains.

But the big mystery is why is science is so perfect. From gravity and calculations to time and birth. One will always wonder, what is this
great energy that makes everything work so perfectly?

Hi Dirra, no I’m not going to bash you over the head;I’ll leave that kind of thing to the religionists. But don’t ask me to respect you or anyone who believes that there is a man living in the sky who requires us to be forever subserviant, compliant and begging for forgiveness for an “original” sin. And you need Aesop’s Fables to explain everything in the bible, not science. Science itself is not perfect; it’s just the most perfect way to explain the wonders of the universe as an alternative to blind faith.

1. I would like to point yout that you are right about one thing, “religionists” tend to bash people over the head, but that people that truly believe in Christianity do not (or should not if they are faithful)
2. I guess you were being sarcastic, i believe you know that Christians/religionists do not believe in a man in the sky but in a god in the heavens (yes there is a difference)
3. One would not be begging for forgievness for “original” sin, but for your sins (although related to original sin, they are the result of choice)
4. Science is a way to describe and explain the wonders of the universe as a supplement to the truth of blind faith: the only point at which religion contradicts science is in the case of the existence of GOD, not in the descripion of the WORLD

Science, a supplement to blind faith? That must rate as the most insulting thing I have ever heard. All scientists, even the ones who claim to believe in a sky thingy, will take serious exception to that statement.

I too believe that one’s faith is based on personal experiences. Where you live, When you live, and your family, It all adds ups. I also think the Bible is a series of events that can now be scientifically explained and exaggerations made by those before us. I don’t believe, but I don’t show disrespect to others’ beliefs. I disagree with most of their beliefs, but I keep it inside. I think people believe because God is easy way to make sense of our surroundings, an easy figure to look for hope and an easy figure to blame. Its just human nature. Yes, religion has provided justification for brutal actions: killing of homosexuals, 911, sexism, Holocaust, discrimination, war. But these events are erected by only a few individuals who have, obviously, gone through some rough and emotionally challenging times. But our world would loose it’s sense of right without religion and our world won’t be any better.

Man-made laws do not prove anything supernatural. Laws are created from man’s experiences of reality. In fact most religious books/doctrine contain history (which can be proven), philosophy (man’s study of experiences), and supernatural phenomenon (which cannot be proven). So when someone says the Bible has been proven, they referring to the portions regarding history and philosophy..

No lenny, you wouldn’t respect Dirra or anyone else of faith because it irks you to think that someone has found a relationship with God that gives them peace, even if it is just a delusion. You however expect and desire respect and think you deserve it too, right? You must think you are just so smart and all the billions of people who “found” a personal relationship with Christ are ALL just deluded… hmm, that’s an awful lot of deluded people. My guess is that you too have searched and found nothing (because you’ve given up) and now there’s a huge chip on your shoulder. Well, too bad for you. Go on believing in your nothing, it’ll do you well in your life.

Hello Lenny
To each his own God, and there own religion, I’m sure the Man from the
sky and the original sin is not every ones religion of choice or logic.
They can worship the sun for that matter.
As far as being forgiven. I think the only person that can forgive your
doing is yourself or the law. (which ever comes first)

I do think religion has fallen into servants of greed and power,
nothing more.

Blind faith… Blind faith can make a man do wonders in his life.
The belief of this power has created many great men.
Why the disbeliefs if the outcomes are great?

You have it all wrong. It is about a king who has power and just takes the wrong turns. Also about how he now knows that he did the wrong things (Who would ever want to be king.) not about being God. The saint Peter thing too it means he will go to hell as well.

This is rediculous. People can take his lyrics in so many different ways. I enjoy this song and have a firm belief in God. Not blind faith, but faith based on irrefutable historical evidence. Sadly, mainstream religion has distorted and lied to its followers. There is no eternal fiery damnation in the Bible. Rather God has held out a hope that very soon we will enjoy a paradise condition here on earth. I don’t see athiest when I read the lyrics of this song. What I see is someone that is sick of Christendom misleading everyone.

WOW THAT IS THE BEST INTERPRETATION YET!!!
But although i do agree that hope is the theme of the bible and what God offers, there is eternal fiery damnation in the bible:
see:
Psalm 9:17, 55:15
Isaiah 14:15
Matthew 5:22, 30, 10:28
etc

Sammy is not saying that he is right, he’s saying the Bible is, can you refute it. And this talk about needing to prove GOD created everything. The fact that there was no one else there and there is no other text in the history of man that has any supreme power claiming to have created the Heavens and the Earth means no one has the right to refute it because they can’t.

It’s like when you go into court and ask “who has brought this claim against me” if no one can bring a claim against you then it is truth. It’s very simple and the message of Jesus Christ was also simple. It’s not Religion by conventional standards. and too many people are confusing Catholicism with Christianity they are not the same do your due diligence in history, because one is corrupt to the core and the other is truth in plain site.

People who do not believe In GOD are usually the ones that want to justify their lifestyle as ok
so they make every excuse to continue living their lives that way and that’s free will which
GOD gave us all however his standards are the highest where lies are equal to murder and lust is equal to adultery. Christ actually made a sacrifice to pay for the debt of sin to allow us
to join Christ in eternal life we don’t deserve it but because of his compassion he did just that. What do we do for Him though, absolutely nothing, and people still love to think they are
so smart saying he doesn’t exist.

Didn’t any of you have fathers? You know the ones that tried to teach you the best they could that gave you lessons on life. And didn’t any of you not ever take his advice and suffer because of it? Well eternal damnation is no different, you could take his offer and rejoice, or you could not and cease to exist your choice.

But when Christ comes back he’s setting that standard permanently no exception and yes while he is bringing back beauty to the earth he does have a place reserved for those that spoke lies about him, denied him to others, distorted his truth, etc.

After all he has the right to do it, and for us to act like little spoiled kids that say dads so mean because he can’t see it our way, the cold hard truth is he has no need for you to begin with.

So how about a bit of humility and meekness instead of all of this arrogance i constantly see in this world and treat your brethren with love, charity, and compassion that’s what Jesus taught and still teaches to this day.

For all of you needing to see a GOD in the skies or proof, your foolishness is the testament of your lives in that case. Because the Bible clearly states there won’t be any sign for an adulterous nation. Christ was the end of the war period, nothing else needed to be done or proven to the world.

Praise Jesus Christ, in spite of all this rambling and nonsense about GOD not existing and Jesus just being a prophet, etc. He still loves you, He still provides for you, He’s still waiting for you to come home, and He will still forgive you when you’re ready to seek him.

How do you know the bible is right? Because it’s the word of god? How do you know god exists? Because the bible says so? Ever heard of circular reasoning?

I suggest you read some mythology. Perhaps you need to become acquainted with the claims made by the hundreds of different civilizations in history about their own peculiar little claims about the CREATION. What makes you think the Christian version is true and the hundreds of others, false? Arrogance maybe?

“People who do not believe In GOD are usually the ones that want to justify their lifestyle as ok”

Do you know anything about my lifestyle? You presume to know based on my non-belief? So you assume that non-believers are automatically evil and total opposites of believing Christians? More arrogance…

“…and too many people are confusing Catholicism with Christianity they are not the same do your due diligence in history, because one is corrupt to the core and the other is truth in plain site.”

Really? Due diligence? I don’t know what history you’re reading, but it’s certainly hysterical.

“So how about a bit of humility and meekness instead of all of this arrogance i constantly see in this world …”

Sacred Scriptures… They are so untrustworthy… If it was God who wrote them where is he know… Why aren’t books falling out of the sky now… Anything that makes sacred scriptures significant is there age. As far as we know the book could have been written for no actual purpose. It is all just assumptions. Maybe, thousands of years from now people will believe, that Harry Potter will come save us from the evil, Voldemort. Funny, how we humans can believe something we have no evidence of.

God didn’t write scriptures, he inspired humans to write it. 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is God-breathed….” It doesn’t say God-written, God-breathed. There is a ton of corroborating evidence for the Bible, especially the New Testament. Not so much for Harry Potter.

Hey Lenny, what makes YOU think you have it all right? Oh yes, yourself… right! Your mistake is in thinking you’re god, a god who only is sovereign over himself but in reality has no control over any situation or person… not even yourself. That is no god at all just a goofy, deluded narcissistic person. God is supreme and we are not, we are not superior to all others and if you think you are, then get into a fight with someone stronger and rougher than you, they’ll kill you mister “My own god”.

Cherie, it’s about as ridiculous as believing that there is an invisible man living in the sky. What irrefutable historical evidence? There is no corroborating evidence for most, if not all things in the bible, especially the existence of a god. It would be paradise here on earth, if everyone held sane, rational beliefs.

You can still enjoy the song, like i do, without having a belief in the supernatural. And so who is misleading everyone; me or Chris Martin or you, your bible, or religion in general?

“It would be paradise here on earth, if everyone held sane, rational beliefs.” – Lenny

I think not. If the world was absolutely rational, then chances are it would not be ‘paradise’. I will advise you to read Gulliver’s Travels and examine Swift’s ‘houyhnhnms’. They represent a completely rational ‘utopian’ society, one that bases every action on rational thought and logic. Now my reason for placing utopian in inverted commas is this:

Their rationality means that there is no fighting amongst the houyhnhnms, they do not become greedy, and there is no unfair treatment. As there is no reason why they should logically allow bad things to happen, they do not. The problem with the houyhnhnms is that they lack what humans take for granted, emotion, and without emotion there can be no paradise. Emotion itself is entirely irrational (thus the houyhnhnms lack of it). To allow yourself to feel the strongest of emotions makes no sense from a logical perspective. Take love as an example.

Why are humans hard-wired to ‘fall in love’? Simple, to reproduce. Now, if we were to analyse reproduction from a rational perspective, the best solution would be to do it soley to produce more humans to take our places when we have died, and cut all ties with the feeling of love as this would just get in the way with proceedings. However, that is absurd. No one in their right mind would want to give up on their chance of love. Now you may be thinking, “But love makes humans feel happy, so doing something because it makes you feel happy is completely rational.” And this would be correct.
But why do we feel happy when we love? What is the person who you love to you? I know what it is in my mind; to love a person is to trust them entirely, and to recieve complete trust in return. If this is true then the person you love may allow you to feel happy, and vice versa. You may share your deepest secrets, confide in them when you are upset, or be encouraged by them when you are uncertain. It is this which makes love irrational. If you give a person your complete trust, what is there to say that your trust will not be betrayed? Although you hope that this would never happen, rationally you can never be without doubt. If this is true then loving someone is essentially ‘blind faith’. We love them, and in return we believe that they love us back. Do you not believe in love?

Now I’m guessing your answer to this question would be along the lines of “Of course I believe in love, it is completely different when you put your faith in a human being as opposed to something you can’t even see!” But is it really? The only logical reason for loving someone, as previously discussed, is that it makes you feel happy, and we have established some of the reasons as to why it makes you feel happiness. So now we can analyse blind faith in/loving a human vs. non-specific deity/deities. The advantages with loving a human are immediately obvious, or tangible for use of a better word (I am quite proud of this bad joke). They are here, they are ‘real’; we can hear them, see them and touch them, and this is how a human who you love can make you happy. With a god, we cannot do this. However, humans are unpredictable and may betray your love. A god will not, whether it is because they are not real or because they are all-loving it does not matter. If a person loves their god and believes that their god loves them back then they will never be betrayed. This is how a god can make a person happy. I will remind you of what you may have thought earlier: “But love makes humans feel happy, so doing something because it makes you feel happy is completely rational.” Perhaps believing in a god is not so entirely irrational?

I too am an atheist and as such I believe in most of what you say on topics like religion and its role in conflict. However, my main complaint with religion, or rather its followers, is their habit to ram it down one’s throat. You are currently doing the same with atheism in denouncing everyone elses personal beliefs, and attacking it as nonsensical and wrong. It is in fact wrong to not accept the right of other people to be happy. It is irrational. True freedom is the freedom of choice, and if people choose to follow religion then you must accept their belief and let them be.

“If the world was absolutely rational, then chances are it would not be ‘paradise’.”

Perhaps not paradise, but most certainly a whole lot better than with what we have currently. For me, that would be heaven.

A society can be rational without having to be utopian. Off course, I understand that both may be unattainable, but worth wishing for.

Love makes humans extremely unhappy, suicidal and even pathological killers, when it does not work out. So you cannot associate “love” only with happy feelings. To my mind, love cannot be associated with rationality, but with emotional behaviour since you need to abandon a degree of rational thought to love. Actually, the motivations for love could be rational or irrational.

Loving someone is based on what you can see, feel and touch. You make a rational decision to love based on that. When it turns out badly, you realize your perceptions of the object of your desire, were incorrect, or ill-adjudged, or worse, you were duped. It is rational nonetheless, to love based on incorrect assumptions or perceptions.

Loving based on what you cannot see, feel or touch is based on hearsay, pure guesswork, pathetic (emotional) need, and absolute blind faith. It is not based on reasoning, even if the reasoning is suspect. It cannot possibly be rational.

“Loving based on what you cannot see, feel or touch is based on hearsay, pure guesswork, pathetic (emotional) need, and absolute blind faith. It is not based on reasoning, even if the reasoning is suspect. It cannot possibly be rational.”

By default, if it is not rational then it has to be irrational. However, you yourself said that love may be motivated by either rationality or irationality. I would acutally like to put it to you that it is motivated by both at the same time, always. Whether it be for a human or a god, there will always be an area of doubt surrounding the motivations behind love. With humans this doubt lies in their unpredictability and with a god the doubt is based on their existence.

The point I was trying to make, one which you seemed to all but ignore, was that love for either a human or a god is not perfectly motivated in terms of reasoning and rationale, so you, unless you are yourself god-like in intelligence, may not judge either to be correct or incorrect as you simply do not know. It is your opinion that a god cannot exist, one which I share with you, but because of the nature of god/gods as perceived by their followers, it is impossible to prove or disprove their existence. As it is an opinion, it is also as annoying to force it upon people as when someone tries to force a religion on someone else. If people wish to be religious, let them. If you want to change the world, promote freedom of choice.

Furthermore, you are quite correct about some of the complications surrounding love. However, you seemed to have misunderstood me. I was not associating love only with happiness, but rather associating the motives behind pursuing love with a pursuit of hapiness. No one sets out to fall in love to become suicidal unless they are, for use of a better word, fucked in the head. It is entirely rational and reasonable to an individual to pursue anything if it makes them happy. Therefore, if it makes people happy to love a god, then to do so is perfectly rational and reasonable to them, even if it does not make sense to you. Honestly, this debate is entirely irrational, there are much greater things you could accomplish if you were to stop trying to force atheism upon people, and did something that was actually constructive and useful. Go topple a drug ring or something. Use your imagination.

Yes, you are correct. I seem to have missed the point that you were making about me trying to “force atheism upon people.” I suppose one could construe that from my responses to the rabid religionist posts here. Off course, it goes without saying that an atheist who points out the flaws in the reasoning of (religiously-inclined) others, is “idiotic” and guilty of proselytizing, himself.

And yes, when someone passes off totally unproved (even unprovable) beliefs as the gospel truth, atheists are supposed to accept that as mere human weakness, something driven by emotion, something to shrug off. Yeah, I guess “if people wish to be religious,” we should just let them. And if they want to jump off a building, we should just let them. If they want to murder hundreds of people by planting bombs in public places, we should just let them. After all, irrational thinking should not be criticized.

There are more important things to be opinionated about; such as oh, the nasty Spanish nation for instance. Yeah, why bother with trivial things like people’s beliefs; when you can have “constructive” opinions about the Spanish and their football abilities.

Sorry I missed all that. I’ll try to pay more attention in future.

BTW: If you’re going to post this on your blog, please get the name of my blog correct; it’s Lenny Says, not Lenny’s Blog.

The reason why trying to convince people of atheism is ridiculous is it doesn’t matter what their opinion about God is if they are just going to die. Convincing people of a religion such as Christianity is important if it’s true because if a person doesn’t believe in it they will be deprived of spending an eternity in the presence of God.

I understand your problem with followers ramming religion down others throats. I grew up in a Christian community and I am one today but it seemed so scary to not be a Christian where I lived. No one would like me. I like your saying “or rather its followers” because it isn’t a problem with Christianity, it’s with its followers, all of which are sinful and make mistakes.

If you believe in aliens then that too is some invisible man living in the sky and if you don’t believe in aliens or life outside of earth then you are closed minded. Your argument can apply to extra terrestrials too. If everyone held sane, rational beliefs then it would not be free will would it? Not all sin is a result of religion, is stealing, murder on by the average guy, molestation, greed, hate not a part of society too? A lot of people live peace filled lives and avoid these terrible sins inspired by FREE WILL simply because of their belief in God and His love for us. Trust me, you wouldn’t want to live in a world without faith filled people.

The lyrics of the song refer to man’s fall from grace and is said in both the context of the creator and the creature – speaking as though they were one, which they were. Far from showing Chris as having lost his faith I take the opposite view – he recognises where God is(altough not sure on his name which is fair enough), why man no longer ‘knows’ God. This is the second song in less than 2 weeks describing man’s fall.

MM3, so you also have difficulty reading between the lines. How strange, that most Christians interpret the lyrics of this song one way (literally), and then interpret the words of the bible in another?

Lenny you’re right, although this is probably because of how Christianity has been ‘taught’ I dont find it too difficult to understand actually but that could be as I’m not religious, just lerned. If only the world knew…….

Cherie, i agree. i love this song, and i am a firm believer in God. and people can take different meanings to this song. i agree also with MM3. i think he is realizing that there is a God, and he realizes he has fallen, but i dont know for certain. its my opinion. no one knows what is in chris’s head other that God and chris himself.

and im also not saying your all wrong. its just that we all have opinions, but remember, by faith you are saved, not good works alone. the only way to heaven is thtough Jesus Christ who died on the cross to save our sins. whether you believe in Him or not, He loves you and wants you to come to Him.

Hi Hannah, sure you’re entitled to your opinions, like everyone else. Chris Martin has hinted about his irreligious leanings and I have interpretd the song with this in mind. Off course, I could be totally wrong, but I have never claimed to be 100% certain…as opposed to your religious conviction which makes a claim about the existence of God and Jesus Christ and sin, without any proof whatsoever. Such blind faith is absurd, and dangerous…

Hey lenny, the bible says… “Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” That means even you. What if it’s true? You’ll feel a little sheepish on that day won’t you? If it’s not true then who cares, but if it is… OUCH! LOL

ok! i didnt know about his irreligious comments. but if you think about the song in my perspective, it says never an honest word, but that was when i ruled the world. i consider that to say there used to be lies when i was in control, but now that God is in control, there is truth being told. just a little side note there i thought was interesting. thanks!

Hi again Hannah, that’s what makes poetry (lyrics are poetry) so interesting. It can be interpreted in so many different ways; and is most probably the very intention of the poet (songwriter). It’s just important to note that we should steer clear of absolutism; which is what I find particularly offending about religion. Thanks for taking the time to debate…

You think it’s wrong for people to believe in absolute truth? So in your mind, you might not even exist, the chair you are sitting in and the keyboard you are typing on might not be there and there might not be any people you are trying to communicate with?

I disagree but I guess that’s what arguments are about :). Sorry but can have your definition of the word “woo” you are using because you have used it twice in responses to my comments and I couldn’t find it in the way you were using it on dictionary.com. This isn’t me trying to be disrespectful, sorry if it comes out that way. I’m just curious.

There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of reasons why man does not need religion. You could read any number of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, David Hume, Percy Bysshe Shelley, George Eliot, Benedict De Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Anatole France, Michael Shermer, MArk Twain, Thomas Hardy, H L Mencken, Sigmund Freud, George Orwell, Chapman Cohen, Bertrand Russel, Carl Sagan, John Updike, Victor Stenger, Emma Goldman, J L Mackie, Salman Rushdie, A C Greyling….the list is endless; and they will all give you any number of reasons why. But for me, the most compelling reason is that religion requires that man must submit his mind and body, blindly to some unknown, unfathomable, unreasonable, illogical force, totally and without question; but man is not some weak mindless fool, unless he wants to be…

No, man is strong and omnipotent right? That is why he has found a way to live forever, oh wait a sec, not even science can stop aging, man will never control that not even if he believes in himself, if he submits his mind and body totally to himself, blindly believes and trusts in himself(as we have all let ourselves down too) even if we are fathomable, reasonable, logical forces. Men who believe these things of themselves lack humility and in a way are kinda foolish and the sad part is they don’t think they are fools.

When I listened to these great lyrics I never thought about religion or God. I must admit that I have wondered whether the writer was singing about an individual or whether he was simply postulating on life in general. Do not all of us recollect periods in our life when things seemed to fall into place and we had so much control over our affairs, but then things start to go sour, and we fall from our position of self confidence. I wondered if the king in the song was just an analagy of such periods of success, followed by the analagy of sweeping the streets we once owned. This is the way I identify with the words of the song.

I cast my eye around the world and see empires which have grown and become powerful like the Egyptian, Ethiopian, Greek, Roman, British, and then withered.
Even great artists and songwriters, actors etc.(I am currently reading Tony Hancocks life story)They,We,Rise on the crest of a wave, and then fall. Just read Judy Garlands life story.

Hi Trevor, yes it could be that your interpreation is correct; and yet again it could be that it isn’t. That’s what is so great about sharing ideas; we all learn. There is no need for the dogma, absolutism and blind faith associated with religion. Thanks for that…

You all can belive what you wish but jesus saves. How can you live life believing that you just came out of the dust with no higher power.What a shame that is what this world is coming too. I know it gets old people preaching to you mabe if you would listen. And i hate the term ‘religious’ the only real ‘religion is eather you believe in God that he sent his son to die for everyones sins or you dont.

How can you believe you evolved from a monkey? Think about it? Where you here when the monkey evolved to a human did you see it happen? Where the people who claim we came from monkey there to see it happen? You say that were ignorant for believing we came from dust? Dust makes more sense than monkeys because when we die we turn back to dust not back to monkeys. At least the things that were prophesies written in the bible came to pass, many are written about in our history books, and were written about many years before they came to pass. For something to be spoken before it happens and it does come to pass is enough evidence for me. We do not believe in blind faith, but on the things that happened and are happening that were written about long before they happened. You See GODs work all around you, you just choose to believe HE doesn’t exist, what if I said I don’t believe in trucks or in buses of in cars and I see one and I just pretend Is not real that doesn’t mean I’m not going to get hit or ran over by it just because I choose not to believe. You can choose look the other way because you can get it in your finite mind the thought of GOD existing because you would be accountable to HIM, you choose not to believe so you can live your life the way you want to live it. Do you really think you live your whole life here on earth to do whatever you want with no sense of purpose and then you seize to exist? Really have you ever sat down and thought about the reality of dying? 100% will die, can you really think about bring here on earth for no reason and then just getting old and dying and not exist anymore? That should terrify you because I’m young and I thought about it once, that made me think about why am I here on earth if I’m going to not exist one day. Thank GOD HE revealed the Truth of HIS word where there’s hope. People who live for themselves have no hope cause they’re going to die one day so hey why not live as you please. I can say I don’t believe in gravity but if I jump off a building I’m going go slam right on to the ground. It doesn’t matter if you believe It’s there or not because it is there wether you believe or not. The same way GOD created everything you see with your eyes including you. And even what you don’t see you just want to pretend you don’t see. So that’s evidence that GOD exists the creation itself, a painting cannot exist without a painter, the same way creation cannot exist without a Creator who is not created but Is. The fool says in his heart there is no GOD. look at DNA, the eye itself the complexity of it. You think that just happened? Or that it evolved? Really? It makes more sense that it was created then to say it just evolved and it just happened out of nothing. Did a car evolve and just appeared? Did a house evolve and just appear? No someone or somethings needs to make it. Hello!!!? And were the ignorant ones? I think it takes more faith to believe what you believe,

Wow Anonymous. If you want people to consider your thoughts and take you seriously, you should first make sure you understand how the theory of evolution works before making ignorant statements. Can I recommend you check out this site? http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html. The second thing you should do is be aware of your grammar and spelling. That was painful to read.

I read the long list of comments you posted and when I got to this one, I knew you have to be trolling me. That or you’re not very learned, are you?

Your understanding of evolution is appaling, even though you claim to have researched it. No scientist has EVER claimed that we evolved from monkeys. The facts are simple – humans and apes (note, apes, not monkeys) share a common ancestor. That’s evolution, not the nonsense you have been “researching.”

I am not going to respond to your other comments, as I have covered this ground many times previously.

I was wondering if I should respond or just let you drown in ignorance. I think I’ll be nice, even though you have me pegged as a murdering, raping, pillaging thieving, marauding evil-doer with no morals, since I don’t believe a super-duper invisible policeman in the sky watches my every move.

First, man and monkeys share a common genetic ancestor which was probably more ape-like than human. You are free to read about it, if you really want to discard that nasty ignorance.

I believe things exist because I have actually seen them being manufactured. I know from experience and observation that jumping off a building is not good for health. Have you actually seen god?

Hello?

Tell me why you think everything must have a creator, but see nothing wrong with believing that the creator was not created himself, but just happened to exist out of nothing?

I assume you’re referring to the complexity of the human eye. You’re wrong – the human eye is actually a bundle of mistakes. Animals and birds have far superior eyes than humans. Now why do you suppose that god created his “superior” being with inferior eyes?

Anonymous never pegged you as any of those things. Tell me how the birds and animals eyes evolved then. You ignored completely his point about no one having seen the things (I’m not going into detail because I’m not very educated on the topic, I believe I learn about evolution theory next semester) evolve.

Jack, one does not have to bear eyewitness to events to deduce how things happened. Working from evidence, scientists, propose posssible explanations which are then meticulously tested to see if the hypothesis fits. That’s how science works. Perhaps you need to start “educating” yourself.

Thanks for the clarification. My point, then, is that it is okay to believe in God without bearing eyewitnesses (which we have in the form of Paul and the Apostles but you probably don’t believe those accounts). We work from the evidence of fulfilled prophecy for one. I may start studying evolution on my own. Good idea.

Circular evidence is basically circular logic I’m assuming such as, “Circular logic works because circular logic works,” but sometimes with more things in between. Looking up logical fallacy…basically it is illogical because it is wrong. I, of course, agree circular evidence is a logical fallacy but I can come up with some examples in the Bible that don’t require circular evidence. I will try to get you some corroborating evidence for the Bible by the end of the week especially because it is too cold to have school tomorrow (strange, right?)

The bible is the word of god because the bible says so. Ergo circular logic. Good luck with finding contemporary sources that prove anything written in the bible. Biblical scholars have yet to find any.

Does the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

“I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

“That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
“Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to go ahead and vandalize LDoes the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

“I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

“That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
“Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to vandalize Liberty leading the People and for himself, going to another party and further disillusioning himself that that’s as good as it gets. Because if that’s the message, then this is not the work of an artist but a grown-up boy who thinks he knows all about this stuff because he “studied it.”
“I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me”- you know who says things like that? Prepubescent kids who brave themselves through R-rated horror movies and to whom simply keeping their eyes open through the show is feat enough. The truth is, they don’t really understand the story.

Does the “I” still refer to God in the line“I know Saint Peter won’t call my name”?

So, if the “I” is referring to the singer himself at this point, is he now saying that Saint Peter does exist? Or that it doesn’t matter because whether he exists or not, his soul is going to be just fine anyway?

“I know Saint Peter will call my name” appears to be a contradiction of the lines in the 4Th verse. However, since this is the closing verse of the song and, in the context of religion, it very cleverly pronounces the final death knell of (the idea of) God, as in being called to rest.
Yes, “very cleverly pronounces” accurately describes this interpretation. From the point of view of a fellow human being in spiritual quest, this interpretation is contradictory, obdurate, and perverse. Putting oneself in the position of god and imagining all the ways in which the influence of theocracy was shown throughout history has the basic premise of allowing oneself to think he/she is God. Perhaps Chris Martin is hinting at pantheism rather than atheism, and perhaps that he could do a better job when he gets to rule the world? Or hey, if God couldn’t do it, than don’t blame him for screwing up in life.

“That’s why people blow up buildings. Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins. I always feel like saying, just join a band. That is the most frightening thing you could possibly say to somebody. Eternal damnation. I know about this stuff because I studied it. I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me.”
Huh? That totally went over my head. Why do people blow up buildings? Because they dread the possibility of being analyzed at the end of their lives, or because they are caught in the angst of not knowing how else they could lead their lives, or because they think putting themselves out violently in life it going to prove to others, “See how hard it’s for me, so don’t you dare come close to me or I’ll blow you up too- also notice the power I can wield”
“Because they think they’re going to get lots of virgins.” I really must admit that I don’t understand the train of thought here. Because “they”? Uh, hello, I’m sure he’s laid plenty of virgins in his life without blowing up buildings. If virgins= beauty and purity, and he’s disillusioned with how the world has fared in treating these precious subjects, he shouldn’t be throwing up his hands in the air and leaving the cover artist to go ahead and vandalize Liberty leading the People, and for himself, going to another party and further disillusioning himself that that’s as good as it gets. Because if that’s the message, then this is not the work of an artist but a grown-up boy who thinks he knows all about this stuff because he “studied it.”
“I was into it all. I know it. It’s still mildly terrifying to me”- you know who says things like that? Prepubescent kids who brave themselves through R-rated horror movies and to whom simply keeping their eyes open through the show is feat enough. The truth is, they don’t really understand the story.

EYC, it’s simple. Chris Martin positions himself as the god (of our imagination) who laments the loss of interest by the very people who created him. It’s a useful poetic tool.

What don’t you understand about people blowing up buildings? Have you ever heard of religious fundamentalists? Where were you during 9/11? Have you never heard of the Islamic myth which promises 72 virgins in heaven to a jihadist (Islamic fundamentalist who sacrifices (sic) his life for the Islamic cause)?

I just have a quick question. If Chris is placing himself in the position of God then why would St. Peter NEED to call his name? Most religions believe God to be immortal so wouldn’t that mean that he is already in charge of heaven and not needing his name to be called?
That is about the only part of your interpretation that confused me.

The devils greatest doing was convincing the world he doesn’t exsist. The Devil is in control of government issues. A nation that abandons GOD will not be protected by HIM. Everything is going according to plan. Soon in our time the rapture will take place, removing all Christians, (Accepters of Christ being the only one who can forgive us of our sins) allowing evil to reach its full power. The world will see a One World Government. Many will accept the Mark of the Beast (Micro chip to right hand or forehead) and all the prophecies yet to occur from the bible will occur. The worst thing about it is they’ll make it look like a great idea to take the Mark. Don’t be deceived my friends open your eyes.

Lenny who are you??? Some Atheist that believs you have too shoot down peoples beliefs??Well I’m here too shoot down yours! I will pray for you! You will need it! And science dosent explain crap because how did science start? in case your confused and I’m sure your anti christ self is, is it began with God someone had to create the sun, milkyway,planets. So here’s a idea get over yourself go to church and pray a lot and have a GREAT DAY!!! Hell won’t be fun! Sorry for the bad news!

Sorry to have to disappoint you, but far from having “shot down” any of my beliefs, you have strengthened them, by your very tone. I don’t shoot down people’s beliefs; I comment on its veracity.

Like, I have requested others; please don’t waste your precious time praying for me; rather use it to examine why millions like me, question your beliefs.

Science is a tool used by rational men and women to explain the world using empiricle, verifiable data. Religion is a tool that provides faith-based answers to explain the world, and entrenches irrationality.

So, here’s an idea, get off your knees, go to a library, open a real science book (start with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) and marvel at the wonders of nature as explained using testable facts. It wont be fun, but at least you’ll learn something new.

There is no proof for god’s existence. There is no proof for hell’s existence. Sorry for the bad news!!! But if you actually read something other than the fairy tales in your “holy book,” you would have known this.

Why do 2 billion (well many are probably heretics but still) accept Christian beliefs. Fulfilled prophecy is evidence of God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas, a great philosopher, believed that reason and faith can coexist. In his words, “Reason in man is rather like God in the world”

Sorry I don’t really expect you to read what you said in your conversations many years ago, but you had said that they should examine why millions of people question the persons beliefs and a responded with a number. I feel like you should realize how unsolid some of your arguments considering you disapprove of some of my similar arguments. I know this makes mine no more concrete but in my opinion it makes yours less.

Thanks for your comments Lenny. I used to be a evangelical christian…so put off by the atheists like yourself. The light finally came on for me and now when I read these comments by Christians, I realize how very absurd it all sounds and am grateful to be set free. How ironic that I’m saying “I’ve been set free” when speaking of losing my religion. That’s what people say when they get saved.

Thanks for your response; it’s gratifying to note that there are people like you out there who are ‘lighting the way’ for others. I’m really pleased to share this journey of discovery with you, and others like you.

Hey,
As much as I loved the song, I still your explanation of if better! Brilliant work. As for the song itself, I was reading on another website, baptist21, a completely different explanation of it all. I personally like to adhere to your version of the song, because it carries a far clearer explanation and one that is studied well. I think Chris Martin’s idea here was to make people think and analyze, and he certainly got your attention on that note. As for religion, I am certainly not educating you about it, but think about it as a car, given to a driver who ends up with a lot of speeding tickets and countless accidents, and in the end of it all, he blames the car, and even worse, the dealership that sold him the car. Religions in all of their versions, Judiasm, Christianity and Islam, have all meant the same thing, to live life in accordance with certain principles, mostly those of peace and common good, but us as humans did our best to deviate and use them for our own purposes. Judiasm was elevated from a religion of self-conservation to solitude, Christianity from a religion of peace to the Crusades and finally, George Bush’s claim against terrorism, and finally, Islam, from a religion of unity and peace to one of division and anything but peace. The more we screw up, we blame God (the dealership) and when we lose faith in that, we blame religion (the car) for the problems that most religious people (the driver) have caused. Stupid is it not? You Answer…

Hi Mohammed,
What a breath of fresh air; finally a theist who can reason without resorting to plugging his religion and or religious beliefs. Your analogy is pretty good; but is relevent only to a believer. Your assessment about the Abrahamic religions is also pretty accurate, and quite honest.

However, this is where we diverge; I don’t blame a god for any of my “screw-ups” simply because I don’t believe a god, or any supernatural entity, exists. I don’t lose faith, because I don’t have any; faith in a non-existent entity is irrational. So yes, you are quite right to say it is stupid, because it would most certainly be stupid to have faith in something that does not exist.

And I don’t blame religion for my personal problems; I blame religion for the multitude of world problems that it (inadvertently, maybe) creates.

Thank you for your submission; once again I laud you for your honesty.

Thank you for the lovely comment, as I have felt the same honesty and understanding from an athiest, and to begin this, I was never looking for a meeting of minds here. I mean where is the fun if we can talk about things we agree on? Plus, what are we adding to each other’s knowledge if we discussed our resolved issues? I would love to continue this, if you don’t mind…
Personally, I am a religious person, and the funniest part about most believers, which is perhaps the same reason why you are not a believer, is that we, for many times, consider God to be the “guy in the white robe in the sky!” Surprisingly, he is always a male, he never had wives, and he, for lack of a better expression, “kept it real” when others denounce him. I have lived my entire life denouncing that misunderstanding, which by the way, is our creation, and not any Abrahamic religion’s statement. In Judiasm, God was this ultimate power, in Christianity, God was the word of peace, but the personification of that idea, which is Jesus, made it more believable, as for Muslims, God could not be portrayed, but I had to resort to a view, I would take the Islamic, because it does not personify God.
I am not sure about your personal beliefs, but if you believe in evil and good, and if you believe in a power that has created humanity, then that’s pretty much what God is, in the core sence. The problem ofcourse, is what we did to that image to make it believable 2000 years ago, and some still continue to do the same today.
My best friend, who is an athiest, denounces the idea of God for perhaps the same principles you have, she refuses to believe in a “being” that controls all of this, and so do I honestly. To my understanding, God is a power, rather than a person, and funny enough, if you read the Tora, the Old Testiment and the Quran you will find that spread all over the place, but no one paid attention!
The other thing about religion; people love to use it to unite a certain force and fight for things that had nothing to do with it. To unite under a principle, you have to do what Russia did during their revolution and during the Second World War, you create an idol, a powerful one, and fight under that idol’s name. The Muslims invaded the lands between South China, and the entire Middle East arriving to Spain under that concept, and the Vatican Church held a war that lasted for years in Palestine under the same concept. In addition to that, one other thing that might through you off is perhaps that “big brother” concept of God; “he” is watching, “he” knows what you are doing, and “he” will punish you!
So let’s gather things, if you have never seen this “guy” and you are told that “he” showed up a few thousand years back when “he” did some miracle work, and now you had to believe in “him,” someone whom you have never seen or even experienced the power of, for that matter.

Finally here, the car analogy, it actually applies to athiests as well, the only difference is believing in the dealership (God). The concept is the same, religion is there! Thus, that car, which many used to get involved in many accidents is there whether we accept it or not.

Fortunately, I don’t have the same problem as believers, in that I don’t feel the need to visualize that which does not exist. I therefore don’t “see” god as the “guy in white robes” or any robes for that matter; I just don’t “see” god because it is not rational to “see” what is not there. I use the term “see” not in the same sense as physically seeing with the eyes; I am referring off course to the fact that there is no empiricle, rational evidence for the existence of any supernatural entity.

The stereotype of portraying god as male is just indicative of the fact that the god entity was “created” by power-hungry men who cottoned onto, and adapted the primitive ideas of stone age man. Religion evolved to become his control mechanism.

I don’t “believe” in evil per se, but observe that there is ample evidence for it in the world, either through man’s neglect or self-indulgence. Man’s inhumanity to man is self-evident, and religious disputes somehow seem to be one major cause of it; there are undeniably others off course, but somehow religion sticks out because rather than being the great mediator, it causes divisions and rifts. I do however believe that the capacity for good is inate in all humans, but is suppressed by selfish pursuits. Personally, I strive to lead a good, honest and principled life, and I don’t feel the need for a “higher power” to keep me on the straight and narrow. My mind is perfectly strong and capable of making morally acceptable choices, without the fear of some invisible entity hanging the threat of damnation over me. That’s just it, you see, eliminate fear of the irrational, and you have true freedom and control over your faculties.

I could go on all night, but have to go; keep well, nice chatting with you.

I understand that religion is often the cause of disputes but these are disputes between different religions (mostly). Think of it this way, if everyone followed a single religion that would probably create a greater peace than everyone living in a state of nonbelief ever could.

And that one religion would be? Don’t you think it arrogant to expect everyone to follow the religion YOU were born into? What if by consensus, Islam or Judaism or even Hinduism was picked as the ONE religion everyone should follow? Would you give up Christianity?

I would expect the greatest bloodbath in the history of mankind to follow. Don’t believe me?

Sorry, I probably should have put this reply on a different comment of yours. You had been saying that peace would ensue if everyone were an atheist or it would be a lot more peaceful at least. I was saying in this reply if everyone did believe in this single religion not just that there was a decision that everyone in the world should follow a certain religion. I know it was a very hypothetical situation but so was yours, and yours could be argued with your same point you just presented.

Coming back to your dealership (god) analogy: methinks the dealership has sold you a right old lemon which requires constant attention to prevent a break down, keeps you in constant fear of breaking down and thus demands even more attention. Sound familiar?

It might get you from point A to point B, but at what cost to your sanity, health, well-being?

As I listen to this song I think this is a perfect song on Hitler. He rose to power, was, “abandon” kinda, then died, and won’t go to heaven, which refers to Saint Peter in some way shape or form. Plus, there is a myth that nobody really ever found the body, which could possibly draw to the conclusion he was able to ‘walk the street’s he used to own.’ I believe you used very superior reasoning but I thought that this may, in some way, be something to consider.

Hi Ed, even though I personally don’t think it refers to Hitler, I’m glad you think so, because at least you are demonstrating the ability to think “beyond the obvious.” Which is the whole idea, really; not letting any narrow world-view such as religion, limit the possibilities of thinking. You may even be right, but only Chris Martin can confirm that.

It has been long since we last chatted about this song. Now that I think about it, I don’t think he was going in the direction of your essay, but something far broader. I think your analysis had more of your personal beliefs in it. The other day I was reading a book about Saddam Hussein, and in a way, Martin was talking about him as well. Furthermore, I looked into the history of all tyrants, you name them, and many of them had a terrible ending. I think Martin just incorporated the idea of St. Peter because he was raised in a Christian environment, even if he is not a believer now. It is not about whether St. Peter exists or not, which I know you would love to debate, but more about “belonging to a group” and whether some of these people who have done so much damage to others in search of human greatness and power, will they be included amongst the “good” according to classical Christianity, those who do not cheat, steal, kill and rape. Like Ed mentioned, it could be Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, or any other tyrant. The saying of rolling the dice and feeling the fear in his enemies eyes can be anyone really, same for wanting his head on a platter, well, he just named anyone hated by the people. After I was fully convicted of your analysis, I think I changed my mind, only because the later analysis carries a far more important message than the belief or disbelief in God. In addition to that, it is more relevant to the world we live in, which knowing about tyrants and how they think is much more important about our belief in religion in general.

Hi again Mohammed, just as Ed mentioned, it is an interesting new way to look at it. Tell you what, I’ll re-examine the whole song again in the light of this new “theory” and see what I come up with. Perhaps a new post…

I find your closing statement about the state of the world being of more concern than religious belief, quite intriguing. You might have something there worth exploring. As you know I reside in South Africa, and current events here pertaining to the new leadership is of great concern to many South Africans, particularly as this new leadership has a penchant for tyrannical behaviour. I dn’t know how much news you get of the events here, but please let me know what your opinion is.

I live in Canada, but I have travelled and worked in 4 continents and I am still under 23. To me, belief in God is something of a personal trait or feeling, sometimes as personal and specific as someone’s sexual orientation. I am a Muslim, not the best kind, but I at least try to practice some parts of my religion. I have, however, argued and debated the classical meaning of God, and that’s why I have a totally different view from most theists.

Name any Abrahamic religion, and you will find similarities, at the end of the day, it is all about guidelines of living life, and in some parts, it’s about pleasing a higher power, by doing “good” deeds. I personally believe in that, but I don’t believe it should be imposed on everyone and forced to be practiced by everyone. Frankly, I don’t even care, nor should any theist about atheists, they believe in what they think is right, so do we.

My biggest problem, however, is the debate about the existence of God and the validity of religion, and further, the superiority of religion. I mean, who cares if theists think that atheists are choosing the wrong thing, or that atheists think that theists are idiots. I would care if this world had no problems, and then this would be one problem for us as species to look into, because for some reason we love to dig holes in the sea just so they can get filled up with water, when no one is really benefitting.

For example, when a scientist works his entire life-time trying to prove that God exists or does not exist, he is just wasting his time because he is not helping our species live a better life. How about that scientist trying to develop something more beneficial, I mean we have many incurable diseases, how about we think of a cure for those?

To me, religion, on the wide screen, is totally political. Take the Islamic capture of lands, the Crusade wars, the current religious upheaval in Northern Island, and even the crazy events in Iraq. Not a single religion has allowed any of that, but people have used religion to legalize piracy of sorts, and of course starting wars under false pretences. It is very convenient and easy to use religion to persuade simple people, who are most of the human population, to start something because of religion. I mean even China, they are being played by their government claiming that it’s all about that “nationalism” which is some sort of belief. In all, it has been used like that car theory that I have told you about, but now we use it to get us somewhere that it was never intended to.

I don’t care who is atheist or not, I don’t who is Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I just care that as species we can live in peace and advance in our lives. If anyone doesn’t believe in God, well, good for them, how about we worry about something important such as health-care, world economy, peace and all that, and if someone is a theist, well, that’s good, but what will they do to improve this world that we live in?

I hope this explains my point to you, I am humanitarian more than anything, and I would love to see the day when religion is actually being put to its true intended use, helping humans live better lives, not be the reason for their demise and discomfiture.

A big up to you Moe, at least you’re trying to make sense of it all, rather than just accept blindly.

For example, when a scientist works his entire life-time trying to prove that God exists or does not exist, he is just wasting his time because he is not helping our species live a better life.

No true scientist would work his entire lifetime trying to prove the existence of god because as you say it is an exercise in futility. However, I know of many religious organizations such as the Templeton Foundation and AIG that employ pseudo-scientists who try to prove god’s existence. Doesn’t make sense, does it?

I like the fact that you call yourself humanitarian; it’s so much nobler than being simply religious. I guess I’m also trying to be a humanitarian, but a secular one at that. Thanks for the reply

Either you’re an atheist, who believes that ‘because I have not felt God, there is no God’, or you are a theist who believes that ‘I have felt God, I know God’. If you’d look for God, you can’t find him. None of us deserve God, yet He gives us that opportunity, none of us deserve life, yet He gives us life and a chance to seek Him and become One with Him. Chris Jesus died for us; God became what we are that we might be what He is. He loves us beyond any human knowledge, to the point where He positively screams at us to seek Him.

Chris ‘knows God’, and I hope beyond hope that he soon ‘feels God’. I would ask Chris to place his trust and hope in Chris Jesus, and let Jesus work within him, to let him be with God.

Hi PD, I find your one-dimensional approach to this god thing rather tired and boring. We have people here who are exploring possibilities in thinking beyond the obvious; people who have freed their minds from the slavery of religious dogma.

Your ideas about feeling and touching “god” border on a mental sickness known as schizophrenia. If you believe you don’t deserve life, please keep it to your yourself; don’t infect others with your self-hatred.

To all of those who question the existence of God I ask you this question…How could a book written thousands of years ago so accurately predict the future? I ask all of you to look at the cycle of life. Why is it that two unlike animals cannot be inbred? Look at a leaf or a snowflake non of which is the same. This world was designed not just something that popped out of nowhere. Saying that this world just happened would be the same as saying the corvette just popped out of nothing.. wrong it was designed and so was this world designed by our creator …God.

I don’t understand why you would want two unlike animals to be inbred. Do you have a morbid fascination for deformed animals? I suggest you study the theory of evolution and natural selection more carefully before passing un-educated aspersions about its veracity.

Where is your proof that this world was designed? The fact that it appears so, does not make it so. Your analogy about the corvette makes no sense. I can observe how the corvette is manufactured (the entire process, from design to moulding the raw materials together) and thus can conclude that it just did not pop out of nothing. How can you conclude that the world was designed by a creator when you did not observe the process? Oh, I get it; you read about it in “a book written thousands of years ago…,” and somehow you concluded that a bunch of neolithic goatherders knew more about the world than modern scientists with access to space-age tools.

Prophecy is fulfilled quite a bit in the Bible if you believe that parts of it were written before certain things that you believe to be true happened. (ex.) Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

This was stated approximately 700 years before the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. While, with many prophecies, one can say that Jesus just purposefully fulfilled prophecies on purpose, he can’t control where he was born.

As a note, I’ve been thinking.. I may be narrow-minded, sure. While I was reading this whole discussion, most of it was basically “hey I’m right” by theists and atheists. Not exactly but keyword: basically.
I’m the type that likes to please everyone (okay not so much everyone) so my ideas are mixed and I find sense in it.. Well of course I do, anyway, one problem with religion is that they, I guess, teach to shove their beliefs down every nonbeliever of that certain religion’s throats, for lack of better words. Whether you believe in a supernatural being or not doesn’t matter too much because I find, for the religions I do have knowledge about, which isn’t much, all simply say “do good in life!” And in most cases (still with the poor knowledge of mine), claim there’s someone, something to give credit and have many people follow under. And throughout the entire bible, literally, the use of God for means of power is apparent. And for a closing note, I like how a lot ofthe teachings contradict.. (christianity) but then again I could be wrong and being narrow- minded as usual. I call mysef that because I’m no good at intepreting beyond the literal and not so much for the obvious.

The fact that the Bible contains bad stuff and stuff that is not appealing supports it. Why would the authors of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) make up that women first discovered the empty tomb in a culture where men were dominant.

And I. Thought I. Added this but. I really just hope the world will be better. Just better for the all of us. But hoping isn’t going to do much is it. And if I kept going I would just rant, so nights (:

It’s probably a veiled threat to keep the flock committed to believing this particular brand of religion. Can’t have them wandering off and worshipping some other rock formation, or something, can we. The politicians who wrote the bible were clever that way…

Of course, it could be exactly the opposite, meaning that he knew that Peter would never call his name, because of his depravity and sinfulness. meaning he was confessing to God, rather than rejecting him. We’ll never know for sure, will we?

I’d give you an “A” on your essay, but I interpreted the song completely differently. I guess you can make your own meaning out of anything to fit your own beliefs. Come to think of it, I usually interpret rap songs wrong…when I realize what the words actually are, I like what I though it said better.

I’m glad I found your take on what this song means – I hadn’t really listened to the lyrics properly until today and I found them very confusing. For a moment I was worried that Coldplay had gone all evangelical, but your interpretation makes a lot of sense and I’m glad as it would appear their take on religion is similar to mine. 🙂

While your essay is a nice read (I am an atheist as well), I will give my own essay on this song…

I believe it is about the famed Napoleon of France, and is written from his view point.

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sweep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

First verse is very obvious.. he use to rule great armies and fleets of ships. Napoleon was also known for taking risks (rolling the dice) and loved the sounds of battle and battle itself. The french king had been beheaded (Louis XVI), but Napoleon had appointed himself Emperor (which is very similar to “king”). He was also exiled twice…

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can not explain
Once you know there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world
(Ohhh)

Second verse… Napoleon often thought god was behind his actions, and waited France to be Roman like, and his son was also known as the King of Rome. Missionaries – he led an expedition into Egypt in an attempt to convince the native populations to join France. Also Napoleon used propaganda in the press very well…

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in.
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People could not believe what I’d become
Revolutionaries Wait For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king

Third verse… Wicked and wild wind relates to the Icy cold wind of the Russian land from his disastrous invasion of Russia (that led to France’s downfall). He entered Moscow, but the King of Russia (Alexandra) ordered Moscow to be burned and destroyed (by the ruling nobles). Thus he returned home defeated, bitter and revolutionaries questioned him..

Regarding saint peter, it relates to the political capital of Russia at the time, Saint Petersburg as his offer for peace to Saint Petersburg was not answered, and thus it was his downfall. I could go into more depth but i do not have time 🙂

Chris has used the story Napolean to illustrate how greed and absolute in one self can lead to downfall. What do you think?

That’s very good Ben. I like your detailed analysis. The album cover could also lend credence to your interpretation, but for me it is too obvious.

I think that’s what Chris wants us to think, because it would be obvious. I tend to favor a hidden meaning (I’m not implying that my interpretation is the correct one for a hidden meaning, but it is one such offering). I am always in awe of poets because they can write something with a literal interpretation, but it could also have a misleading (or obvious) interpretation as well as a hidden meaning. I like to look beyond the literal or obvious, even if I’m just wasting my time…

I am an educated and (yet) ardent Roman Catholic who strives to actually practice the religion rather than merely affiliate myself with it. I hold a diferent view than many Christians because I believe that the Catholic Church is the only road to salvation, and that we are not automatically going to enter heaven even if we do nothing – we have to cooperate with God’s grace won for us on calvary 24/7.

I find the song, your essay, and the subsequent discussion to all be quite interesting. I agree with your interpretation of the song as correct for the author’s hidden meaning. My reason for writing is to make up for the poor account of theism given by most of the theists thus far.

So far I can recall three important aspects of this debate which I would like to answer in the following order: empirical science is man’s only sure source of knowledge, God’s existence cannot be proven, and religion is a type of slavery. I ask that those responding would treat them in this order as well or I think that the first must be demonstrated before the next, then the third point.

First, science does not reveal all knowledge. Each individual human being is unique among animals because of his intellect, a wholly immaterial principle by which he knows universals; this is separate from the power of cognition which animals and humans use to know distinguish (know) particular objects. E.g., a bear can sense a a wooden object with bark on it of a certain smell, with green leaves, etc…, and recognize that it is different from another similar object in some ways and that it is vastly different from a fish. But, a human can know that the object which has all these qualities is a tree and that it shares its “treeness” (its nature) with other similar things. The important thing to understand from all this philosophy is that all of this can be known through the use of reason and observation of the real world without any help from science. Also, the intellect is immaterial, but that is just what spiritual means. So when one talks of spiritual beings, one is referring to beings whose immaterial existence is just as possible as one’s own immaterial intellect. Of course science is completely incapable of understanding these beings or even whether they exist or not. This means that science is incapable of saying much of anything definite about God, and that one must rely on the science of thought, reason, to unlock the truth.

The second point is that God’s existence can be proven. Now, many people find no empirical evidence for this and conclude that he therefore doesn’t exist. This is absurd, because both because it denies the importance of man’s power of reasoning, and because it is concluding beyond the facts – just because one thing isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t prove the opposite view. This is as ridiculous as believing that there are no life-supporting planets because none have been found after much searching! In short, atheists accuse theists of futile belief when their own conclusions on are no better grounded. So one must look beyond scientific evidence to philosophical evidence. Now, this area is not often explored in today’s world because so few people are educated in philosophy. This may explain why perfectly valid arguments are thrown out the window because they are just too hard to understand, especially for those who have no patience or willingness to do so. Because Go is a spiritual reality, one cannot think of him within the limitations of the material realm. This is the key to making sense out of so many proofs for God’s existence.

Finally, true religion does not enslave. That is, the truths taught by the Catholic Church actually give one the freedom to be happy! The reasoning behind this is simple, but needs a God to validate it (that’s why I’m treating these topics in such an order). God made each man and woman in a certain way so that they will be happy only by living in accordance with their nature. This is where the idea of natural laws comes from; they are principles by which one is to achieve one’s perfection and happiness. Divine laws are a way given by God for man to participate in the supernatural life (supernatural meaning: above the natural). Now the Catholic Church is the only one which teaches all divinely revealed laws. These laws in no way enslave its members, for that involve keeping man from doing what he was made to do. Instead, the truths of the Catholic Church are “in sync” with natural laws and thus help man to achieve his natural perfection.

Now all three of these points could be expounded tremendously and they do not cover the entirety of the atheist – theist debate. Like I wrote earlier, they are just my attempt to make up for some poor representation of theism by earlier posts.

You are one of the few people on this blog who tries to reason, rather than make bold but totally unsubstantiated statements about religion. For that I commend you.

However, allow me to address the points you raise:

Observation does not always equate to truth/reality. A person could be halucinating and believes what he sees to be real. However, science can be used to back up observation by simple testing and retesting, until the observation is proved to be true. Science is the only valid tool for confirming reality.

The point about proving god’s existence is moot. If I told you that there was a giant teapot floating around in space, you would not believe me, simply because you cannot see any giant teapot, nor has anyone else. The same applies to god; you say it exists because of belief/faith; I say it is untrue because neither I nor anyone else has seen him/her/it. Without evidence, belief is just an arbitrary emotion. Philosophy does not provide proof for the existence of something, it merely attempts to explain why something exists (as in really exists, which means you can see, smell touch it).

What makes you think that the religion taught by the Catholic church is any more valid or true, than that taught by other faiths? Your assertion can be called arrogant, and indeed will be called thus by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists etc. It proves my point about enslavement; you are enslaved to the Catholic version of religion, just as the Hindus and Muslims are enslaved to their versions of religion.

I want to clarify what I meant by observation first, and also discuss what reality includes in a little more depth, because there is no use talking about God or faith unless we first establish that his existence in reality is possible. Also, philosophy is only a fluffy word with no substance if there are no spiritual realities. If there are, however, then you have to give a open ear to it as well.

Okay! So I meant observation to be the perceptions of one’s interior and exterior senses. (If you’ve never heard of the interior senses, they are the imaginative, memorative (not necessarily memory), estimative, and common sense powers. I don’t think it is necessary to do more than mention them in passing unless you are interested). All scientists deal with observations, but because they only use sense perception, they are limited to a material world.

We live in a world, however, in which immateriality is equally as important as materiality, if not more so. Ideals, knowledge of universals, opinions, etc…, are all immaterial and an essential part of our existence. Because these things are immaterial, they cannot be dealt with by a material power. Scientists don’t observe little opinion molecules floating around, nor do they observe opinions (acts of reason, i.e., judgments) being formed in the actions of a brain. These things are done by man’s immaterial/spiritual intellect and will. Basically the point is that the reality of our own immateriality leaves open the possibility of purely immaterial being(s).

One of the greatest fallacies for anyone is to say that something absolute exists merely one’s by faith in it. Many people actually hold this illogical view, so I don’t blame you for thinking I’m the same. Basically God’s existence has to be absolute; that is, either he is or he isn’t independent of what we say about it. Now, accepting an invisible God is contingent on accepting immateriality which is all around us whether we accept it or not. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting something which you can’t see.

I will also add that it is important that God is not material otherwise he would be just as finite as the matter of which he were composed. Spiritual things, unlike matter, are not made of parts and so are incorruptible, they don’t decompose. So God would have to be immaterial.

Concerning the arrogance of my position, what if the Catholic Church is the sole “vessel of truth?” (I say this for your sake, I myself believe I could show it beyond reasonable doubt). Would bold declaration of the truth not be an act of kindness for a neighbor? I don’t shove my position on others, nor ought I to be accused of intolerance, for I cause no one harm by stating my convictions.

I fear too, that atheists don’t liberate themselves by “killing” God. In the past two-three centuries since the enlightenment when man began to throw off religion (it is this that coldplay refers to), chaos has ensued. We have constantly experienced it in rampant anarchy, and tyranny with their subsequent oppression and wars. Atheistic governments take control of their citizens as we see across Europe. On the individual level, those who reject absolutes turn into self-gods as they make up they’re own moral code. It is only insofar as their code matches with the natural law that they find happiness. What is the point of searching endlessly for that which does not satisfy? What is the point of living if there is no ultimate good we seek? Is it a surprise that as God and religion are removed, crime and suicide go up? This is not to say that these crimes aren’t committed by theists as well. Rather, it is a loss of morality which atheism and secularism have brought which have influenced others’ morals. Atheists have essentially created their own one person box where the strongest eventually controls the rest. Theists have a much bigger box which the more they try to live up to it, the greater peace and harmony they create.

Your suggestion that thought processes are “immaterial” and therefore idicative of some sort of spiritual or “godly” process, is quite frankly, astounding. Further your suggestion that there is a material and immaterial world is far-fetched, to say the least., but fits in nicely with the concept of a supernatural presence in the universe (for you at any rate)

You stretch incredulity even further by suggesting that since god is immaterial, he/she/it is made up of non-matter. Which is meant to explain why we cant see him/her/it.

So once again, I put this proposition to you. By your very own arguments, I contend that there is a giant teapot floating in space. And yesterday, I caught a glimpse of the green goblin with three eyes and a pot-belly, who lives in my garden, but only comes out when the moon is full. Do you believe me? I can honestly say this belief is a product of my “interior senses,” and who are you to shoot it down. Do you understand where I’m going with this?

Opinions, ideals and judgements are not constants, and therefore of no use to scientists. So too emotions and beliefs.

Atheists have not “killed” god. We cannot kill that which never existed. Chaos has always been around; even before religion. Religion was probably created as a means to find answers to chaos (among other things) by primitive man. If you look at some of the darkest periods in our history, that was when religion was at its peak.

If you need religion to hitch your morals to, then you are truly lost.

I think you are all just spinning a lot of crap, especially you Lenny. I just googled what the title meant in English and was met with your babbling. As with any religious literature, I am sure the song can be interpreted in many ways. I wonder if Chris Martin appreciates you ‘clearing’ all this up for him. Why are you so passionate about not believing? I don’t care if you don’t believe! Go for it! I guess I will just have the last laugh.

I too find it odd that you have used Chris’ song to criticize religious views. Love them or leave them (religious views that is), I hardly think that his purpose was as simple (or profound), as you think. His “poetic” views are just that: his views. The meaning may be plain or hidden, but none of us know for sure. On the other hand, while you claim an open mind, I find you aggressively critical of those who disagree with you, or who stoop to belief in what you consider false. And while I am not religious, I find it odd that you so strongly claim that Darwin’s theories are accepted fact. In reality, many of his views are much like the religions you criticize… ideas looking for concrete eveidence that simply doesn’t exist, even among the scientific community. And further, many of those views are not even his, but those of subsequent followers who will not acknowledge that these were simply theories or possibilities developed but not proven. Yet those who believe wholeheartedly exert the same “faith” that you dismiss in others.

Perhaps you’d like to re-read my comments. Sure, I’m “aggressively” critical of some of the comments here, but that’s because I expose irrational thinking. If you care to go through the comments again, that’s what you’ll find. It so happens that the irrational comments tend to originate from those who are religious, but that’s not my fault. Don’t expect me to accept uncritical thinking.

Agreed, Darwin’s original theories on the origin of species and natural selection were further developed by scientists after him to eventually comprise what we know today as the theory of evolution. However, the theory of evolution has been confirmed through rigorous scientific experiment, and actually confirms Darwin’s original ideas as true. There are many online resources which confirm this; you can look them up eg. TalkOrigins, TalkReason, The Pandas Thumb etc.

(i) When creationists dismiss evolution as “just a theory,” they mean to say that it is at best a speculative proposal, or at worst a mere guess. Such an assessment has been rejected for over a century by the scientific consensus, which recognizes that evolution has been established by evidence as firmly as anything can be: not for no reason is evolution considered the cornerstone of modern biology.

(ii) But if evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, why do scientists still refer to the theory of evolution? Doesn’t this prove that they themselves believe evolution to be speculative? On the contrary, the word “theory” has a specialized meaning in scientific usage that is much stronger than its colloquial meaning. In scientific circles, the word “theory” usually designates a wide explanatory framework that has reached the highest standard of confirmation by factual evidence. When scientists want to talk about a mere conjecture, they use the word “hypothesis.” As zoologist Tim Berra explains:

>A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of “theory” we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra 1990:4)

To say that evolution is “just a theory” is at best to make a mistake comparable to saying that Copernican theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease, to name a few, are just guesses. Evolution is a theory only in the same robust scientific sense as all of these other theories. Creationism, on the other hand, is not even a theory.

(iii) To its credit, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis advises against making this assertion. The assertion AiG recommends as a replacement (namely, that evolution is an unsubstantiated conjecture) is equally false, but at least does not trade on confusion over the word “theory.”

I “almost” feel cheated. So many others receive a rousing response. I had to settle for a generic copy of othe’s data. I know, I know…you can’t keep reworking the same ideas. But, I still think Darwin & his theories/ideas are suspect! Thanks for the debate!!! Jim

Hey good essay and all. I’m a musician and I just liked the vibe and the instruments and never really read into the lyrics too much.

As for the religious part of this discussion I will say I am no philosopher like some of you sound like, I am not well read with all these books and I do not feel the need to be. I believe in Christ Jesus and the Father, I dont feel like I am being controlled or anything of that matter. I believe God created all and I feel more than happy knowing that I believe we are made from dirt because we return to dirt when we die. I dont know who said anything about blind faith but FAITH IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND. It would not be faith is there was proof. the majority of the world thinks otherwise and I’ve learned that the world usually doesn’t have my best interest at heart. The best part of believing in God is what I have to look forward to; heaven. Call it one dimension, call it boring, call it childish, but I have hope in something. You may feel emancipated from disreagarding the idea of God but I feel great. If freedom is what you want you can have it but I want God. Man can hardly control the little freedom we have here in America and you want total freedom? I am telling you this not to change your mind but because I am passionate about a God who was passionate to me. (and I love deep and meaningful discussion). When something is so great one can’t help but keep it to themselves. If i were to find a field with an endless amount of gold, would I keep it all to myself? God is that gold, and I have to share it, no matter how selfish I may want to be. The mere English language or any language could not describe God or all of this universe and neither can science but I choose to believe in God still. You may say it is harder to believe what I do and there is no evidence but I don’t need that. I’ve learned that the harder thing to do is usually the right thing( I’m not saying I’m right and you’re all wrong, just an example) but I choose to believe with faith because it gives me hope. I hope I have chosen my words carefully and I am not misunderstood. God bless.

Lenny, I enjoyed reading your interpretation of the lyrics and I agree that there are multiple interpretations to poetry.

As an English professor, I often use songs like this to encourage critical thinking in the classroom. I googled around to see what others were saying about this song and voila! Intelligent conversation (mostly 🙂 ) I can see the truth in every interpretation so far: God, Napolean, Evil Tyrants In General, (Wo)Man’s personal greed, and the one that caught my eye the most. . .Satan.
Hmmm, there wasn’t much comment about that person’s suggestion.

However, as a Milton scholar, I can tell you that there is a huge argument to be made that this is an ode to Milton’s version of Lucifer-The Morning Star. Before all you theist’s whip out the pitchforks and torches, I’m talking about the rise and fall of one of God’s angels. Eventually, he became the sad sack known as Satan, but in Paradise Lost, the story is told from the beginning when God’s angels were first introduced to his Son (knocking the Morning Star down an unwelcome peg or two which leads to his revolutionary war in Heaven which leads to his long plunge into hell–it took nine days! which leads to him becoming King of The Bog of Eternal Stench, etc.)

I wish I could figure out how to explain this line by line, but its late and I should be sleeping. . .
Suffice it to say that I agree there are many interpretations.

And I’m ill-equiped to join the deep philosophical debates like I wish to, but I do get the argument that God is not made up of “material” that can be measured or weighed. She’s like gravity (which Science has pointed to and named, right Lenny? But it was still there even before scientists could prove it was there) The Creator is a force like gravity, always present and working, whether we “feel” him or not.
I agree with that one chic who said she gets Hope from her beliefs. Hope is the feeling that motivates us all if you think about it.

Interpretation of the lyrics is just that “interpretation.” As a molecular anthropologist I have learned that anything said has multiple interpretations which can all be correct. Let’s take religion completely out of the equation. No one wins when debating over religion and politics.

Now, let’s take these lyrics to another level of thinking. “I used to rule the world” and “one minute I held the key” could possibly mean that you had it all at one time, then one day everything came crashing down (“next the walls were closed on me”). Especially when your “castle stands on pillars of sand.”

“People couldn’t believe what I had become” could mean that once you were looked at with such respect and dignity, then one day all of that was gone. You would feel completely unworthy and doubtful of anything.

To me, this song tells the story of someone’s life; of how they were once on top and had everything, then they fell from their once high social status only to crash at the bottom.

Oh, one more thing. Lenny, I think that you did an outstanding job of interpreting this song. It may not be the truth for everyone, but it did stimulate thinking and the possibility of various perspectives rather than just one.

I’m reminded of that all too often. It may be true and even though religion and politics don’t deserve any protection from criticism, I’m beginning to ease off, albeit reluctantly.

Anyway, the (alternative) religious interpretation does give the song the spice it deserves. The straightforward interpretation (which, as you correctly point out, could be entirely correct) makes it quite bland, in comparison.

I think you have contradicted yourself. First, you say that “we are evolving all the time.” Then in your next paragraph you state: “In all honesty, the state of man today is in deterioration.” I’m sure this was just a mistake. Would you mind clearing up what you said?

Let us define some terms so that we can be on the same page. According to atheism, how do you define perfection? How do you define evil? And, I would still like to know what you believe regarding the origin of evil.

“Absolutes are very tricky to discuss and actually undesirable.” I’m a bit confused. I know they are tricky to discuss, but what do you mean when you said they are undesirable?

Genesis 1: 26-27 (NIV): “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in His own image, and in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Nowhere in this passage does it say that man was created perfect. For the sake of space I was not able to quote the whole chapter, but if you read the entire creation account, nowhere will you find the word “perfect” used to describe God’s creation. Man was created in God’s image, but was not created perfect. Thus, Christianity does not claim man was created perfect.

You tend to lump Christianity together with all the other religions in the world, which is understandable coming from your worldview. However, let me make it clear that I am not an advocate of religion in general. Rather, I am an advocate for Christianity. Remember that you use the term religion to describe all the different beliefs of the world. I have been using it in reference to my own religion, Christianity. This was an error on my part, and to prevent confusion, I will stop using the word ‘religion’ and use Christianity instead.

A pity we live in different time zones. I wish I could respond sooner than I do, but I appreciate your patience for responses.

Let me clarify my apparent mistake. Evolution does not imply a natural progression in only a positive (or improved) direction. In other words, bad genetic copies (mutations) occur from time to time, which results in the copy not surviving. I am by no means an expert in the subject, but you are welcome to research this phenomenon at your leisure.

So yes, we do evolve all the time, but do not necessarily generate improved versions of ourselves. I was not actually referring to our physical evolution, but rather our mental evolution. The physical side is observable (maybe not so easily), but the mental development is not always so easy to gage. But yet, it does happen.

As I said before, evil is relative. One should allow for a wide range of interpretations on either side. The origins of evil is of no consequence to me; the origin of evil does not influence my choice of behaviour. It may come as a surprize to many believers, but I do have morals, and they surprizingly co-incide with the morals proposed by religions, but I do not need any religion (or holy books) to be my guide. I hope I don’t sound facetious here, but morality comes to me naturally.

Absolutism is not a desirable trait (my honest opinion, supported by many, many others). Religions/religious adherents are particularly guilty of propounding absolute views of the world. Absolute views of the world don’t allow for the “many shades of grey” that does in reality exist. Most (if not all) things are relative.

If as you contend, man was not created perfect, but was created in the image of god; would you then not conclude that god was imperfect?

I don’t discriminate between competing religions, so its natural that I tend to “lump” them together. The basis for all religions are the same; you just have different holidays. I’m sorry, old joke 🙂

I understand you believe absolutes are undesirable, but you can’t escape them. Whether or not they are desirable, they are still there, and they are still important. Take gravity for instance. I once saw this shirt. It said: “Gravity. It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law.” If I say I don’t believe in gravity, it still exists whether I believe it or not. Gravity is an absolute. Thus, you can also conclude that the world either evolved over time or was created. One of these is true whether or not you believe it. But I might note that it takes faith to believe either one.

“If as you contend, man was not created perfect, but was created in the image of god; would you then not conclude that god was imperfect?” I do claim that man was created in the image of God, but this does not mean man was created exactly like God. On the contrary, man is an imperfect, fallen being, whereas God is infallible, righteous, and all-knowing. However, man does embody certain traits of his Creator that reflect this truth. Like God, humans have an eternal soul, innate creativity, and large capacity for thought, which distinguishes us from the rest of God’s creation. Thus, man is not created exactly like God, who is perfect, but in God’s image. Man embodies certain traits of God, but not all His traits.

As I said before, I understand why you lump all religions together, but you can’t truthfully claim they have the same basis. Perhaps the majority of them all believe in at least one god, but they all have very, very, very different views on the character and nature of their god(s) and also how their god(s) is/are to be worshipped. These things affect the way the religious community operates, and in turn they affect the world. So again, I understand where you are coming from, but don’t forget that each religion’s individual beliefs make a great deal of impact.

The reason I am so curious about your take on evil is because it doesn’t seem to fit with your view of evolution. Who can deny there is evil in the world? We see it all around us. But if man is constantly evolving and becoming better and better, how does evil fit into the picture? You said in your last comment that evolution doesn’t always move in an improved direction, and sometimes “bad genetic copies occur from time to time.” I understand what you mean. But still, evil just doesn’t seem to fit. I would think the subject of evil would be very important to you simply because it seems to be in opposition with your evolutionary theory.

I must thank you. This type of debate has really made me think about and ponder my beliefs and their implications. I have really been enjoying this. 🙂

I suppose you could refer to gravity as an absolute, but it’s an absolute of nature. Good and evil are not forces of nature. They are relative, subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists and can be proven to exist, scientifically and through observation. Not so with good and evil and other absolutist ideals. It also does not require faith to observe scientifically, unless you distrust your very eyes and ability to make calculations. The observable results corroborate the hypothesis through testing.

Lets be fair on the image of god thing: I’ll go as far as to suggest that man was then created in the in-exact image of god. Perhaps you could through observation conclude that man is an imperfect being, but how do you know all these characteristsics that you attribute to god, to be true? Have you observed god? Has anyone observed god? Has god personally spoken to anyone? The bible says so? Come on now, lets not even go there?

Me lumping religions again? I was being generous when I said all religions have the same basis. Perhaps the truth is that they all have no basis? To me, the character and nature of one religion’s imaginary god, is no different to the character and nature of another religion’s imaginary god. Does that make more sense now? The individual beliefs of each religion, makes a difference only to the followers of those religions, not to me. I have no preference for any one of them.

Evil is not in opposition to “my” evolutionary theory, or any theory for that matter. It’s inexplicable to me why you would believe so. Evil plays no part in evolution or any other natural process for that matter. The case for evolution has already been made, may time before, and various fields of science continue to make corroborating discoveries, almost daily. Therefore, there’s no point in me trying to prove the theory all over again.

It is too hard to argue in the sense of all religions because they have conflicting beliefs. Different gods are different in nature and cannot be argued for in the same way. You have given yourself a very narrow view, what you think is true, while you are asking others to argue for he entirety of world religions. You claim that we are pegging our religions but that is because each is what we want you to believe in and what we ourselves believe in. You have slanted the playing field quite a bit. I’m sorry for the criticism but it doesn’t seem very fair the way you have set up these conversations. I know I sound like a little kid, “It’s not fair” *hmmph*

P.S. I don’t think Buddhists even have a god unless I’m mistaken.

I would like to argue for Christianity specifically. I think one of the best ways to argue for Christianity is to convince a person that the Bible is true so I would like it if you gave me a reply to this message giving me consent to argue this issue with you so I’m not just putting letters on a screen for no reason.

Maybe the way I worded it is but I think you can tell that I wasn’t saying that, but I guess you can never know. I could say, different religions are convinced of the existence of the idea of different gods, many of which are very different. I believe that only one of these ideas of gods is actually the real God that does exist. Sorry, I only realized now that Anonymous said a very similar thing about 6 years ago.

I think that twocentsworth put it very well in saying that it isn’t being selfish thinking that only your god is the way to heaven because if your religion is actually the only right one, then you should do everything you can to convince other people of your religion.

“Absolutes are very tricky to discuss…..” I agree 100%. Everyone has their own perspective and take on things. So how would one know what perfection is? Does perfection even exist? What maybe perfect to one, maybe less perfect to another. As for evil, what exactly is evil? In some countries, infant girls have their labia cut off, which is considered a ritual. Is that evil? Some people will say yes, some may say no, and some may choose to not say. Therefore, evil, perfection, or anything for that matter is all relative.

This is why people worldwide do not agree and arguments arise. If people could simply learn to accept that everyone has different perspectives and that their view is not always the right one; then we might see more collaboration and possibly peace amongst people worldwide.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion about perfection, evil, etc according to their belief systems. For me, as a Christian, it is very easy to define these things because the Bible sets down a clear distinction between right from wrong, good from evil, and perfection from imperfection. This is why I asked Lenny how he defines these things so that we can understand where the other person is coming from and so discuss beliefs intelligently.

The Bible is one example of a book partially designed to assist man in perfecting himself whilst simultaniously denying him the try knowledge the original preacher, in this Jesus. The major religions are near identical in nature and are largely based on an older religion. The religions are designed, largely for the masses, above which there exists belief systems, these usually require an underlying faith in some kind of deity. These belief systems tend to be more of a practical nature, in terms of perfecting the human being, and over a period of time will usually convey a better understanding than that of religions.

Over time those in the belief systems will attain the knowledge of how humans, earth, the planets and the One (or God, pick any name you’re comfortable with it doesn’t mind lol) interlock with each other, seemlessly and effortlessly.

Above the belief systems(which all have an indoctrination of one kind or another) there is the root understanding, free of ego, dogma and unsubstantiated claims. It essentially completes the key areas missing from both religions and the belief systems, which is extremely useful as one is then able to verify information provided in for example the bible.

I am not a religious man and just used the bible as example, and I’m not a member of any belief system. Yes man should be perfecting himself, sadly the vast majority are not and this is evidenced by much of the state of the world today.

There has been much work done by scientists over the last few years, to understand why the religious belief system persists to the modern day.

There have been proposals which state that belief systems (such as religion) have been hard-wired into the brain of man, to aid in our evolutionary development in earlier times when the universe was still one big mystery.

I feel terribly sorry for Chris that he must sing his pain and sorrows in music lyrics that are so beautiful yet so hurtful. Some of the world feels that God does not exist but yet when need be they call and pray for God. Does Chris think he is where he is today because of fairies??? No, It is God giving him the opportunity to do Gods work through his music and Chris is taking the wrong path. I will pray for him because he is talented and can do so many good things for this world that his children will grow up in and later in life see how their father protrayed the Lord, rather good or bad. The example he sets will be with him for life. I can only hope and pray that before Coldplay hits rock bottom and he bangs out in proverty, he will take a good look at his actions and beliefs and turn around to the Lord and do Gods work in return for his many blessings he has received from God.

Mimi
You have a really warped view of humanity. You seem to think because Chris sings music that doesn’t adhere to the Christian theology or might speak contrary to the position that it is bad/wrong/evil. Humans are complex beings with a whole gamet of emotions and thoughts on the world. Expressing them is not bad because many people out there can relate and have felt and thought the same things. Music is a great connector and healer of humanity. To come to the conclusion that Chris is wrong and setting a bad example and coming to the conclusion that he will fail (which you are probably hoping because you don’t agree with what you assume is his religious/worldview position) is sad and narrow. It is sad because because of your adherance to y our position that Christ is the ONLY answer and that the others are condemned to hell (I’m assuming this is your position..it was mine once too) and anybody who lives contrary to the Christian position is in some way evil (the Bible teaches that) you will fail to see the beauty in humanity. And I have found since discarding my evangelical christian upbringing..that there is MUCH MUCH beauty. There’s SO much beauty in people and there’s so much to learn about this world. And from what I know of Chris, he is a beautiful person too.

wow lennymaysay you are so misleaded. i just dont understand people like you. you say there is no god and that science is the answere bla blah blah. did u know that famous scientists such as albert einstein and many others believed in christ. also lets look at what u said u say that science explains everything well how do u know that out there is actually a milky way did u ever see it with u your own eyes? now we are gonna say that u didnt so we will have to conclude that you believe have faith in the scientists. now where is the guarantee that they will say the truth that thos books will say truth and truth only. again you will have to believe that they do. now i dont about you but i see many flaws in that. now lets look at how the universe is made there was a big bang? than the universe expanded. after that our solar system was created throught stellar evolution. now science says that our planet earth is in just the right place. it was the right distnace form the sun.the moons placement was perfect the other planets arent close enought to pnetrate earth. now we would have to belive all that. all of it was chance it just so happens that earth is where earth is. now we would have to say it all happened perfectly. god is perfect and god made the earth perfectly. so now i will ask you and all the other athiests to not search the web on how god doesnt exist. to make yourself feel reasurred that when u die u wont go to hell. but to search how god exisists. there are unexplained phenomenoms that happened all due to god. science has to make new lies and new reas0ns that will make it logical in their mind. now god does exist i know it because unlike you i dont need to read a book and listen to other people talk about it. i can feel his presence when i pray. when my chuch has a strong prayer i can feel his presence i can see his miracles. now tell me where is your evidence that out there is actually a milky way or that there is molecules and elcetron etc etc.

After much difficulty, wading through your argument which is devoid of proper grammatical and sentence construction, I get the gist of it.

So lets cut to the chase. Neither I, Scientists or Science itself has ever claimed that science explains everything. Science does not have all the answers, but through the use of the Scientific Method, we are trying to find them. Much unlike religionists such as yourself, who are content to sit on your asses and accept everything your clerics tell you, on faith only.

Perhaps you need to do more research, outside of the religious apologist references you have apparently been conned into believing. Albert Einstein was far from religious, and did not “believe” in Christ. References to Christ and religion made by Einstein have been taken out of context by religious apologists; so much for integrity in religious circles. I’ll leave you to discover that fact, the evidence for which you wont find where you are normally looking.

Science has never said that “earth is in the right place” and all that other bullshit that you mention. In fact these claims are made by creationists such as yourself, and other religious apologists. The position of the earth was actually in an optimal position to support abiogenesis and the evolution of life thereafter. And the universe, far from being ideal for life is in fact positively hostile to life, which is why we have not observed it anywhere else in the known universe, except on earth. I’ll leave you to research the technical terms I’ve used here (I’ve explained them many times elsewhere on this blog).

Atheists will not look for evidence for the existence of god, because not only is it an exercise in futility, we are not the one’s making fantastical claims about the existence of such an entity. As a matter of fact, since the earliest civilizations made such claims about super-duper sky fairies, many thousands of years ago, none have produced the slightest jot of evidence for those claims. You expect everyone to believe your absurd claims solely on faith and the threat of eternal damnation. What a laugh!!!

The next time you “feel his presence” when you pray in church, I strongly suggest you ask the guy next to you why he was touching you inappropriately; or maybe it was the preacher himself. It’s highyly absurd to think that the feeling you experience is only attributable to the presence of a god or gods. There are many other explanations for those feelings, none of which you have bothered to explore.

The evidence for the Milky Way has been presented many times by scientists; there are now even many photographs taken by the Hubble and other telescopes, available online and in books. You have not bothered to research these; perhaps your eyes are far too clouded by “seeing miracles” and your mind deluded by years of religious indoctrination.

I suppose the next claim you’re going to make is that the very internet technology that you are using to communicate with me, was “created” by your god too, and not scientists.

“…unlike you i dont need to read a book…” Yes, I hear you, and it’s patently obvious why you know so little about the universe. Do yourself a favor; read some books apart from the bible…

I have this “mild assumption” that you did not own all the Coldplay CD’s that were ever released. I therefore suggest that to really emphasize the point you are trying to make (and off course to score some Brownie points with god for when the rapture comes), you buy all the Coldplay CD’s you didn’t have, and burn them too. That will teach them to make “anti-GOD” songs.

In fact why stop there; I can supply you with a long list of other bands who produce “anti-GOD” songs. You can buy all their CD’s and burn them too. By now you should be having great fun burning CD’s (and accumulating Rapture Brownie points); why not buy all the “anti-GOD” books published by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Douglas Adama,Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Arthur Miller….(aaw, just find more here), and then burn them too.

Now that would be making some point. I’m sure god is bound to sit up and take notice. Who knows, maybe he’ll create a special Rapture, just for you…

Hi lenny, im back again. Now i would like to say that i may not have the best sentance structures, and i may not have the greatest spelling. But i am a human being (not a monkey) and last time i checked i still have the freedom to state my opinion. I want to say something, science waste milions of dollars to send up telescopes to space, just to try to prove god doesnt exist! Now science strongly supports that everything happens due to time and chance, am I right? Well ill tell you if you want to see time and chance, go to a junkyard that is a very good example. Also lets look at evolution, slowly time after time we went from monkeys, or now from a distant ancestor of monkeys. How does the entire DNA structure change, how do the chromosones change, what does the monkey do, go mate with another animal or do miracuorasly they change off their own accord. Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.

Also The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists’ text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don’t believe that nonsense.

Stretch out a timeline with 1,000,000 divisions representing years. Evolutionists tell us that humans have evolved very little over this timeline because evolution progresses very slowly. Based on the Theory of Evolution we should easily find massive signs of civilization going back a few hundreds of thousands of years, but the signs of civilization are not there. Humans have existed for the last six divisions. The previous 994,000 divisions are completely empty. Evolutionists simply ignore the fact that intelligent humans suddenly appeared in the very recent past, certainly within the last 8,000 years. These humans were as smart as humans are today, maybe smarter. They accomplished awesome construction projects that suddenly appeared. Where are the cities that date back a mere 20,000 years? There are none. The foundations for many cities should exist if humans existed at that time, but not one city can be found. A simple settlement cannot be found that is 20,000 years old. The only crude tools and bones found are from ape-like creatures. Even these are in question because the dating methods are not reliable.

Evolutionists find a piece of burned wood and claim it was from some human campfire dating back 50,000 years, or whatever. This is nonsense. It was most likely wood burned during a forest fire. Evolutionists find an ape skull but claim it is pre-human in the evolution timeline. No. It is simply a skull from an extinct ape. Extinct apes are not humans, and no link has ever been scientifically proven. These claims are not based on science. They are pure speculation made to fit the evolution timeline myth. Evolutionists have wild imaginations devoid of solid science.

Statistical mathematics is used by engineers and scientists to prove and predict many events, probability of structural failures, the weather, etc. Insurance companies use statistical mathematics to predict the amount of money they are expected to pay toward customers’ claims in future years.

Life is abundant on Earth with an awesome diversity. Statistical mathematics would predict that some life forms should have evolved on Mars in past years when the planet had more running water like on Earth. But Mars is absolutely sterile. NASA continues to send one Martian probe after another in a desperate attempt to find any sign of life. Each probe fails to find any life forms whatsoever. There is no evidence of any life form ever existing on Mars.

The universe consists of billions galaxies with billions of stars around each galaxy. NASA and other scientists keep searching in panic for a sign of life somewhere in the universe beyond the Earth. The search is very important to them, because statistical mathematics shows that the lack of life proves the Theory of Evolution is wrong. The frantic search has always ended in failure. Time passes without finding any other life forms beyond the Earth. Tick, tock, tick, tock — no life, no life —- accept the truth, accept the truth — you are stupid, you are stupid. Statistical mathematics proves the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

Science books have been telling us for years that all humans are 99.9 percent genetically identical, and it is commonly said that humans “share” 98-99 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Now we find the claims were all fabricated lies. Instead of having only 0.1 percent difference among human individuals, we now find that people can be genetically different by as much as 10 to 12 percent. This is a 100 to 120 times increase in the degree of difference. This announcement is a another crushing blow to the false Theory of Evolution, but your university professor will simply ignore it.

“Russia is to launch a special satellite this year in search for extraterrestrial civilisations in remote galaxies, the ITAR-TASS news agency reports. The Spektr R (Spectrum-Roentgen) x-ray satellite to be launched later this will carry a 20-metre antenna for the study of galaxies and extraterrestrial civilisations. “It would be arrogant of us to presume that human beings are the only life in the universe,” Georgy Polishchuk of the Lavochkin Research and Production Enterprise was quoted as saying by the agency.”

The news story above is a great example of mass brainwashing and a complete absence of logic. The Russians are spending millions in an attempt to find extraterrestrial intelligence in remote galaxies. They have chosen to explore using a x-ray satellite. This idea is stupid. They are hopeful of finding intelligent life forms broadcasting in the narrow x-ray frequencies, even though no emissions have ever been found in the broad radio frequencies or any other frequency. This experiment will be a failure, or the scientists will simply lie about the results. Trust me. They won’t find anybody. Get real. Don’t believe this brainwashing nonsense. If another galaxy were to scan for x-ray signals from Earth the result would be zero. We don’t blast x-ray signals into space, but we do blast radio signals into space. A recent Internet survey showed 86% of the people believe there is life outside of our solar system. Only 14% believe outside life does not exist. In other words, 86% of the people are brainwashed.

So lenny run to your books and tell me im wrong, these are proven facts by many creationists that evolution is wrong, all it is a bunch of theories that hopefully one day will be proved right. You ignore the truth and hope that one day through time you will discover that darwin was right, when really all scientists find these days is more evidence that evolution is wrong. THey just keep adding new theories to try and explain what happened and why it happened. I am praying for you and i hope you will realize that the very thing you believe in is a big lie and as empty as outerspace itself, god be with you.

While I heartily welcome you back, I can’t say the same about your “curious” ideas and beliefs. It’s obvious you’ve been reading up somewhere, but it’s also quite plain it’s just pseudo-scientific literature, not real science.

And while you may not like to associate yourself with monkeys, I certainly have a closer affinity with monkeys than I do with the “nasty” human species.

Before I proceed, I would just like to point out that you destroyed your entire arguement in your opening lines. Science has never sent up telescopes into space to prove or disprove the existence of some cosmic sky fairy. The only intention of scientists in sending up space probes or telescopes or whatever, is to discover more about the universe we live in. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a blatant liar. But, I’m not surprised; a well-known agenda of the religious fraternity is to spread disinformation, confusiona and utter lies, in a feeble attempt to hold on to the dwindling number of faithful devotees. For them (the clergy and others who profit from selling superstitious nonsense) it’s a matter of survival. And their job is made pretty easy by impressionable people such as yourself.

It pains me to point out all the flaws in your (is it really?) arguments; it means that I have to once again make you look quite ignorant. So, instead, I will concentrate on the more ridiculous ones. It’s patently obvious you know absolutely nothing about evolution, and that you’re being totally mislead by con artists who have been employed by the church and other religious crazies to perpetuate superstitious bullshit – because religion is a dying industry.

It’s a complete myth that evolution states that changes happen over long periods of time and by “chance.” Do yourself a favor and read some real books about evolution (not the rubbish your church recommended). Evolution can and does happen over very short periods of time (weeks even)- there are numerous examples [If you’re really interested, you can read Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth. Or look online, since you don’t favor books]

Seems you believe that there were many species of monkeys that went extinct. According to you the skulls and skeletal remains scientists are finding belong to extinct species of monkeys. Are you then proposing that these extinct species of monkeys walked upright and then suddenly after going extinct they reverted to all fours again? These skeletal findings (supposedly extinct monkey species according to you) have scientifically been proved to walk upright, based on the skeletal form. Of course, you believe that this is all lies, and the scientists are just lying about them walking upright? Right? Incidently, would you care to explain why your god creates species that become extinct?

I would suggest that you really read Dawkins’ book which actually explains fast deer and fast predators in detail in a chapter about the “evolutionary arms race.” The mysteries will become all too apparent, asuming off course you want to learn, rather than just believe. Other chapters explain the other difficulties you have with wings etc.

Time does not make impossible things possible.

Neither does belief in the supernatural or a religious book with dubious credentials. Once again, Darwin does not claim that time is essential for evolution. You have been duped into believing a myth. Not unusual, considering the other things you’ve been duped into believing.

Evolution does not make any speculations about ancient civilizations or how far back they stretch or when they came into existence. Don’t confuse evolution with anthropology. Anyway, anthropologists (the real scientific kind, as opposed to the religious kind) don’t make wild claims; they make estimations based on scientific analysis. You mention “ape-like creatures.” What is an ape-like creature? According to your creation belief system, a creature is either an ape or not. “Ape-like” would seem to suggest that you accept an intermediate form. Make up your mind. The dating methods are numerous and beyond reproach. Your pseudo-scientific religious apologists would like to have you believe otherwise, successfully it seems. Once again, I’m not surprised. We spend “millions” discovering the secrets of the universe we live in; they spend millions trying to convince the faithful that we are wasting money. Go figure.

But Mars is absolutely sterile.

This has not been proven conclusively. The fact that we have not found any life forms yet, does not mean that that they are not there. Anyway, life forms does not necessarily mean human; it could just be bacterial.

The universe consists of billions galaxies with billions of stars around each galaxy. NASA and other scientists keep searching in panic for a sign of life somewhere in the universe beyond the Earth.

The only reason we know this is because we spent “millions” exploring the universe by sending probes, building telescopes etc. You seem to have no problem using scientific discoveries which you think supports your narrow world-view, but in the same breath you have no compunction in castigating that very same science which shows up your religious beliefs. Your ignorance about the aims of NASA is once again manifest. NASA’s intention is not specifically to search for alien life forms. There is another organization which is responsible for this – SETI. And please don’t confuse SETI with the UFO crazies.

I think you need to study genetics much more before you make vague statements about it.

As far as the Russians and their search for ET is concerned; don’t believe everything you read. I am sure that the excursion has much more to do with real science than some ET hunt as you would have us believe. Your pathetic attempts to cast aspersions on the real scientific community is rather disturbing and I view it with contempt.

You should be the last person to talk about brainwashing. The only thing creationists have proved, is their narrow understanding of science. Since I don’t find any value in prayer, I’ll hope you eventually “see the light” but I won’t lose any sleep over it…

If science is a sum of made up lies and beliefs, I wonder what religion in….

Science is the reason you are able to comment on this blog, it’s the reason you are living, it’s everything around you. I mean everything! Science is helping you understand yourself and your environment. It’s the reason billions of people are surviving from life-threatening disease. Science is doing this much, but you are just spitting in its face.

You may believe God is the one that protects you, but it has been science all along. God is just figure made to hide science.

If you think evolution sounds ridiculous, think of how ridiculous it sounds when I am told that some supernatural entity (an entity that is infinitely superior beyond my wildest imagination) just came into existence out of ‘nothing’ and then at a snap of a finger created life and the universe out of ‘nothing’. Or, the creation of man out of dust from the ground; a woman from a piece of rib (?). How would the logic in this argument compare to the one of evolution? Just a thought to ponder over.

Tony
It is clear that your thoughts are based on second hand information, Information fed to you by some religious indoctrinated person(s). You not gullible, so do yourself a favour and start reading as much as you possibly can regarding the absurdity of creationism and the facts about evolution. When you feel you have discovered the answer, don’t stop – carry on researching. Stop listening to the beliefs of others but develop your own.

Evolution is a theory in biology which is a branch of science. And please don’t refer to it as “just a theory” as many creationists disingenuously tend to do.

One defintion of evolution is “In biology, this is a theory in which all species develop from earlier life forms. According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favours reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to have the favourable traits.”

Educating oneself is easy; the hard part is willing oneself to get started. Once started however, one needs to attain the habit to doubt, rather than believe. Doubt leads one to the truth eventually.

You make it sound as if one has to make a choice between Evolution and Christianity. That is not my intention, nor the intentions of (real) scientists. As a matter of fact there are many Christians who have come to acknowledge the truth of evolution without seeing any need to discard their faith or Christianity.

Evolution is not just a theory. It’s veracity has been demonstrated time and time again beyond question. It’s just that you need to understand it (really understand it) and make up your own mind, by researching the evidence put forward by true scientists, not the religious apologists hired by the clergy to spread misinformation and outright lies.

Tony, here is a great website. The third question deals with evolution as a fact. The answers are very concise. If you care to, read through them and let us know what you think!http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

We, mankind, will not ‘farloan'”gezag”(Dutch):’give got choosen power {upload}’: accept no law above him/her as a free choice; but at the same time he/she wants to/does act power over other(s) (groups): thé receppy for a destructive highway to human hell. With the evolutionary technical possibilities of our (rat-)race it’s like gambling. From that dilemma and all the individually and collectively (historically) suffering as a result, (wo)man,(s)he MAY/MUST be tending to ask about his/her existence and purpose too survive, groupswise: that’s where instruments of the mind/hands (applied! science: tools/technics) and equally balanced, experiences of the hart (applied! gnosis: living-stories/art/-rules the(ir) (sub)world) is searched for and found (as thé survival strategy); both by a (collective)learning/educating BRAIN! in dito human BODY!
We shall see in what way applied modern (individual) science (including all kinds of incertainties, hypotheses) is capable of filling in the gaps/cracks that collective hart-knowledge (live-long group storie-visions/) are showing more and more…. My humble opinion is: Keep honoring + using ALL (y)our senses and historical(collective)LESSOnS in Love (living together), to prepare for an surprising future…modern (private) but also linked to our (collective) past…shalom, peace, Mir, salaam, vrêe[.nl]…;…free::vrij[.nl]en: struggle for ‘ware’ LOve
AvanA

If religion were to be eradicated for some reason it would have some sort of consequence. Most of the way people act is based on their religious beliefs, even if they don’t have any. Religion does bring about a moral compass that keeps people in check. Fearing that you would go to a bad place when you die would keep you from committing an act that is wrong according to your religion. Just like believing that you would end up with something wonderful will make you more willing to do an act that wouldn’t be acceptable to others, but to your religion.

As much as people would like to dispute it, a lot of things that are generally found wrong are based off of Christian beliefs. The Sixth Commandment is “Thou shall not kill”, and that is punishable by the force of law. Committing adultery, stealing, and lying are all covered in the Commandments too, yet they are still frowned upon in most religious or nonreligious views. Would that make them right to do just because God said they were wrong?

Saying that religion takes away freewill is utter nonsense. You have a choice to believe one way or another; no one is making you do it. If you don’t want to believe God exists, that’s your choice to make. No one is going to be affected by your decision except you.

Nothing involving religion is set in stone. The Big Bang is just as hard for a Christian to believe as God creating the Earth and everything in it is hard for a non-Christian or Atheist to believe. Neither are proven to the other side’s satisfaction. Trying to convince the other side that your side is “right” is trivial; it rarely does anything more then start an argument or “heated discussion”.

I think that people need to leave other’s religion alone. Calling them things like “bullshit” shouldn’t be acceptable. You wouldn’t like it yourself if someone said that about what you believed. Even if you were to act civil about it, you still wouldn’t like it. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right. In no way should you feel like you’re in the wrong for believing -or not believing- in God.

90% of the world is religious. 10% are not. 90% of the world currently follow a religious moral compass, and yet the world is so screwed up. So the argument that religion is necessary fo morality is totally flawed.

I think you would find that the 10% who create their own moral guidelines are not the ones responsible for the parlous state of the world.

Strange beliefs such as those propagated by religions, are not acceptable, no matter how sugar coated they are. Just as the religious claim a right to spread strange beliefs, I have a right to expose it as such.

My beliefs are based on scientifically verifiable evidence. Religious beliefs are based on simple faith and primitive emotional needs. You are welcome to call anything I believe bullshit, as long as you can prove it.

You have a constitutional right to practice your religious beliefs in the privacy of your home. When you bring it into the public, you then interfere with my constitutional right to freedom from religion

One more thing, excuse the typo in the previous post, when Christian missionaries are in Uganda telling the residents that they must kill the witches, and those witches are children…I’m going to go ahead and call those religious notions “bullshit.” We need to base our actions and lifestyle on reason. I am a very morale person, and I have no religion. I would never kill, steal, or hurt another person and I will teach my children the same. Not because of a fear of God, or a mandate from some holy book, but because these actions or lack of actions are the best way to live for myself and for civilization to thrive.

Rachel, when a Muslim (maybe you are one, I don’t know) claims that he is going to get 72 virgens as his reward for flying planes into the twin towers to kill the “infidels”…I’m gonna go ahead and that person his religious ideas are “bullshit.” Agreed?

So are you saying that one should terrorize another to make them make the right choices in life. This itself defies the Golden Rule. I think people will do what they want and religion is just an excuse. The same force you say has caused peace is probably the main source conflict and destruction in our world today. Most discrimination is the cause of religion. Where was the peace when Christians burnt homosexuals alive because a verse in the bible asked them to? When women with a close connection to herbs and nature were hunted mistaken to be witches? When Osoma Bin Laden decided to shatter the economy of U.S.A with the destruction of the world trade center? Is it really just for a Hindu wife to suicide at her husband’s funeral? Or for people to be divided into castes depended on their occupation and wealth? And you were telling me that religion motivates people to be peaceful.

“90% of the world currently follow a religious moral compass, and yet the world is so screwed up”
It’s not the fault of those with religious morales, or any morales, that the world is this way. It’s the fault of the immorality of those who get the advantages of those with morales. Say your sibling was about to loose their car because they have been missing payments for months. You decide to give them the money to keep the car, because you feel morally obligated to do so -plus they are family. Now that they have the money, they decide to use it to buy a laptop, or to go on a trip to Disney. Is it your fault that they loose their car , and possibly their job, because you were did what you felt was morally right?

“You are welcome to call anything I believe bullshit, as long as you can prove it.”
You don’t need to prove anything in order to call it bullshit, or any type of other name. I could say someone was nuts because they picked a penny off the floor. I didn’t need to prove that they were in order to say it though.

“You have a constitutional right to practice your religious beliefs in the privacy of your home. When you bring it into the public, you then interfere with my constitutional right to freedom from religion”
You are still free to stay away from it. Unless a group of religious people mobbed you, tied you up to a pole, then started preaching to you are they violating your right to bee free from religion. If you drive by a bookstore called ‘Books for Christ’, you’re free to drive right by it. If you see a religious website, you’re free to block it from your computer. When religion is publicized, there are plenty of ways to be “free” of it.

Maestra: No, I’m not Muslim. You also just helped to prove my point a bit. You can’t prove that those people didn’t get 72 virgins, just like you can’t prove that they did. Yet you can still easily call it bullshit.

“I am a very morale person, and I have no religion. I would never kill, steal, or hurt another person and I will teach my children the same.”
Would be safe in assuming that your parent’s taught you those morales? They may not have been religious, your grandparents may not have even been religious. But somewhere down your family tree, there was more than likely a religious person that believed that those morales should be passed down to their children.

I’m not sure what your point is concerning the “immorality of those who get the advantage of those with morals.” Are you proposing that 10% of the world who happen to be non-believers, cause all of the world’s troubles? Or are you saying that within this 90% of religious people, there are those who are immoral, and who take advantage of those who are? If so, that still negates your arguement that religion is repsonsible for morality.

I think you missed the point about providing proof. Your statement that proof is not required to call something bullshit, kinda strenghtens my argument, but I don’t operate like that. In effect you agree that I can call something bullshit, without having to prove that it is in fact bullshit. I like to prove that an assertion is patently false or unverifiable before I call it bullshit. This is what the scientific method is all about.

With reference to the concept of freedom from religion: Perhaps you haven’t heard about proselytizing. Perhaps you haven’t heard about how the religious want to impose the teaching of ridiculous things such as creation and “intelligent design” in schools. Perhaps you cannot see how this constitutes forcing religious beliefs down the throats of impressionable children. Perhaps you don’t see how preaching in public about an unprovable fate beyond death affects the lives of innocent people.

Religion is in your face. It’s not as easy as turning the TV off, if you don’t want to watch. It’s disingenuous to reduce it to such a simplistic level.

Finally, I think it is highly presumptuous (arrogant even) to suggest that religion was ultimately responsible for “passing down” moral values in society. I’ll agree that religion was responsible for some (questionable) of the positive developments in the evolution of mankind, but to accord it the status of the authority on morality is outrageous. The arguments for the opposite is quite strong

Rachel,
I was merely responding to you saying calling peoples religious beliefs “bullshit” shouldn’t be acceptable. I’m wondering if you don’t agree with me, that not only is it acceptable, but the “bullshit” of these religious beliefs should be called out and NOT tolerated (killing child witches and “infidels”) Do you not agree that these relgious ideas are bullshit? I agree..it can’t be proved one way or the other…although the acts of murder based on unprovable religious notions should be called out for what they are. BULLSHIT!!
Regarding my morales…here are a few of my morales and why I live by them. I do not kill people when I’m angry at them because I do not wish to be killed when someone is angry at me. I do not lie to people because I wish to be trusted and I hate it when I’m lied to. I do not cheat on my husband because I want our relationship to last and I don’t wish for him to cheat on me. I do not steal, because I don’t wish to be stolen from and I resent paying higher prices because others steal. I also am interested in my local businesses succeeding, which they cannot if most people just go out and steal. I treat others with kindness and respect because I wish for others to treat me that way. I wish to live in a kind, respectful and honest society and I can contribute or detract from that kind of society by the way I behave. I wish to have friends around me who behave the same way. I enjoy people who act and speak respectfully, who I can trust, and try to contribute positively to the greater good of society for themselves and for my children. So I try to be one of those people, making it more likely these kinds of people will accept me as their friend. I have also chosen to not become drunk while I have young children who depend on me, not because I find it amoral, but because I wish to be “of sound mind” for my kids and when my kids need me. I am not saying it is wrong for people to get drunk (as long as they’re not driving) though. I don’t need religion to decide how to live. I live the way it makes sense for me to live to have the best life possible for me and for my kids. Does that make sense?

I’m honestly a little shocked. This is a perfect example of people taking something, and twisting its meaning for their own uses. This reminds me of the episode of South Park were the kids write a book, and blame butters for it, thining they will get in trouble. And supprise supprise, the adults screw up and interprit the meaning of the book to fit their beliefs.

Do you really find it hard to believe that a band would write a song about revolutionaries withouht some hidden meaning claming that there is no god? You must understand this simple fact: most people are anything but reflective. They don’t contemplate the meaning of life. Most live for and in the moment. You saw a song whos lyrics you could try and pull a meaning out of that fits your own agenda.

My interpretation of the lyrics stems from an interview given by the band, whcih led me to “look deeper.” The truth of the matter is that Coldplay are not your average run-of-the-mill dime-a-dozen pop artists who can just sing other people’s lyrics. There are many bands who write lyrics that explore more than the mundane. It’s your loss if you haven’t come across them.

I have a greater belief in the capabilities of man, than you seem to have. Mankind is not just worship-fodder for the gods, as so many religions want us to believe. We are indeed reflective; much more than you give us credit for. That’s the reason why so many of us are skeptics. We are not satisfied with what religion tells us.

What do you make of the various interpretations of scripture and how they are used for religious and political agendas? If it was indeed the word of god, do you not think it would be clear and unambiguous?

Lenny, I agree with you on the “religion sparked morality” thing. But you need to understand, many people find it disheartening to thing that what you see is what you get. I personally find it a little depressing to think that there is nothing more out there than this, that working a 9-5 job for 40yrs is the entire extent of my existence. My church teaches that the bible isn’t a literal history of the world, but is the word of god: love your fellow human being, don’t kill, and live in a good way. It is meant to teach a moral lesson.

This is the same reason for the 9/11 conspiracys. Many find it frightening to think that the most powerfull country on the planet (and lets face it, the amount of force america can bring to bear on an enemy is daunting)could be struck at in such a large way by a small group of people opperating out of a cave.

I have learned to accept the hard realities of life, and have found that you can still create joy and meaning for yourself and life, without having a supernatural entity involved. I also have no problem with living a moral life without some cosmic policeman looking over my shoulder.

The 9/11 incident you mentioned, and the fear that follows, is driven by competing religions and politics – twin sides of the same evil coin.

John, the point is that each one reads any text in a different way, based specially in what he believes. The bible is an example, there may be 1000s of different understanding. But the fact is that, in this case, if you read with the eyes of an atheist, seeing the singer as a god that used to be powerful in the past and now no one cares about him, it makes complete sense, every verse. I gess you are American (there is nothing wrong with that, I love USA), then it`s more comprehensive, but you should undestand that in Europe most of the people (specially the yougests) doesn’t belive in this figure of god anymore, and Coldplay is an English band (sorry about any writing mistakes).

Lenny, you can no doubt create joy in life, but you must accept that some (myself included) find it disheartening to think that we are all alone floating on some rock in the middle of space. That there is nothing more than the 80 odd years given to us on this planet sparks the thining “well I may as well do whatever the hell I feel like, not like I’m gona be punished for it when I’m done with my corpse”.

The mormons are a perfect example, most don’t touch alcahol or any drug because their *cough* god tells them not to. Most are as nice as you could wish for, while many others are raving alcaholics and drug adicts.

As I said, my religion teaches that the Bible is meant to teach a lesson. I personally think god intervenes in ways so small, no one one notices a thing.

You remind me of a black australian socalist (swear on my life, I’m not lying) who was convinced that competing governments (which is just competint natonalisms with acces to larger stores of weapons) was the root of most of the problems in the world. You think that combined with religion is evil. Evil is a matter of persepctive. I guarantee that the islamic extremists think they are doing gods work. They think we are an affront to god. Its that type of thinking that is the problem with the world.

Disheartening it may be, but how you deal with it says a lot about your character. You can eitehr accept the reality and live your life the best way possible without expecting reward, or you can create an illusion of a reward and perform mental gymnastics trying to attain it.

Either way, people can choose to live within certain certain moral guidelines or “let loose.” Most atheists create their own moral codwe which you would find to be the equivalent of a religious code or superior to a religious code. Contrary to religious proponents beliefs, we don’t “do whatever the hell we feel like.”

Like you said, evil is subjective. However, atheists tend to live within a rigorous moral framework that would put most religious people’s “god-given” moral code to shame.

In my opinion, Its deeper than the lyrics, The government is currently doing Genetic engineering, and they want to literally make a (WoMAn) man and woman all in one. Thats why if you look at the picture you can see the “thing” holdin a flag has characteristics of both man and a woman. Look closely, he has breast, make-up, muscles and all that nonsence..Viva la Vida clearly means “live you life”. Because the government wants to make a 1 world Empire and 1 race, and 1 gender!!!!….

By the way, there is a brilliant thing that was left behind that is: “Viva la Vida” actually means “Live the Life”, like he was saying, “Don’t live the death, like christians do, live the life, while you are alive, after all, there is no life after death”.

Sorry for pissing you off. I’m glad you saw that proselytizing is annoying. I also appreciated your sarcastic wit and hope you enjoyed my commentary on Spanish sportsmanship. Which I would like to point out was obviously a joke aimed at entertaining people. Constructive? I think so.

Call me misanthropic, but you will never stop people jumping off buildings, shooting people, blowing up buildings or whatever in the name of some cause as human nature is fundamentally flawed. You are an intelligent man (I did actually read this article and the bit about where you are from), but not everyone is as smart and reasonable as you. You yourself said that love for another human being can turn people into pathological killers.

I’m going to actually say what I thought of the article now because the debate earlier was going nowhere and I’ll feel bad for not doing what I’m supposed to. I liked what you had to say about it as an anti-religion piece, but to me it feels like reading into it a little too much. I find the explanation of the contradictory line of the last verse a little too woolly to stand up, though it was an intriguing way to get around it. I prefer to see the song in slightly more straight forward and literal light, but nevertheless you had a very original and interesting take on it.

You can tell that I’m pissed off? Damn, that sarcastic trait of mine is a dead give-away. Anyway, I did enjoy your rant about the Spaniards. You are on the road to achieving the aims as layed out in your blog. However, making your thoughts available freely on-line opens you up to all sorts of criticism, most of which will be negative, and a great part of that will be offensive too. But I suppose you know that already; which is why I have a disclaimer on my blog which states that I will return offensive/irrational posts in spades.

When you care enough about your fellow human beings to write about them, I suppose that’s constructive.

Coming back to this particular essay. I wrote a re-take on my earlier interpretation about a year after the first one, which you can find here: Viva la Vida: A second take on the meaning of the lyrics. Us skeptics are allowed to have second thoughts on any matter, when new evidence presents itself. Check it out if you have some time.

As far as stopping people jumping off bridges etc. is concerned, I think we have a moral obligation to at least try. We may not be successful, all the time, but we should make the effort. It means that we care about our fellow human beings; even if we have to “hurt their feelings” from time to time.

BTW: You can post as many times as you please, and any criticism is welcome.

Lenny, I don’t believe that athiests are any better or worse as people than anyone else. I’m simply speaking from expierence. 90% of the athiests I’ve met disrespect athority figures and often cuss them out (police included, which is about as dumb as you can get). Now perhaps I’m getting a bad sample; you, for example, seem like a very nice person.

Roman, you must understand that your theory won’t come to pass. There are too many competing nationalisms for there to be a single world empire. And there just aren’t enough troops from the countries that might work together to occupy the rest of the world (I believe this is what holds many countries in check, the U.S. included. There just aren’t enough soilders to go around). Also, every country would want their current capitol to be THE capitol. That would further the animosity felt between many countries.

earthboundauthor, I must agree with you about the final verse. The explination was… convinent. I must also agree with you about the suicide and murder. That won’t be stopped by religion OR by lenny’s ‘moral code’.

Sorry I couldn’t reply sooner; I’m on road trip currently with very limited internet access.

If I created the impression that atheists are better people, then that was not my intention. I agree that there are atheists who are very bad people; happily I’ve neither met one or know anyone personally.

Atheists tend to speak out against authority figures, true, but I’ve never known an atheist to speak out against an authority figure who didn’t deserve admonishment. We speak out against those in authority who abuse their power; usually for selfish gain. Does this make us bad people?

I personally speak out against the police (the South African Police, specifically) because of their abuse of power, and plain incompetence. If they were any good, I won’t have to admonish them. That does not mean I hate the police (or authority figures generally); it means I hate bad police or policing. It’s simple.

I”ve never been into lyrics and analyzing them, but this post made me think that side of the music the first time. This experience really opened my mind for the interesting world of lyrics. Thanks! (: (I know this sounds ridiculous, but I’ve always fancied the music over the lyrics)

For me, the lyrics are perhaps the most well written when they are intrepeted differently by many people. Puff the Magic Dragon was great song in that it had multiple intrepretations and Viva La Vida is no different. I see on one level Napolean, on another a lack of faith in religion and I also see a former gang member who has lost his power on the streets and is now reduced to cleaning them up for someone else. All in all, just a great song with lyrics that could be used to write a term paper.

I think the lyrics of the song can have multiple meanings. Personally, I think the song is as if the singer is Jesus. Its as if he is turned on by his own people, and they realize that “the old king is dead”. He was always in “castles of sand”, waiting to come crashing down.He talks about hearing the sounds of Jerusalem and the Roman Calvalry when he “ruled the world”, but then that is taken away. He talks about “the wicked and wild wind that blew down the doors to let me in”, which could be like God assisting him with his power. Then all of a sudden, people saw what he was, a threat, and turned on him. And he asks “who would want to be king?”, meaning: who would want to have to be under the pressure I am to be the messiah. He is down on himsewlf and he is sure that he will not succeed and “Saint peter won’t call my name”. Then he comes to the realization: I am the son of GOD, and in fact, Saint Peter will call my name. Just another point of view, and though all the facts do not line up perfectly, it is a possibility. However, I do not think anyone other than Chris Martin will know the true meaning of the song.

Okay- at first I thought this was about the fall or the Roman Empire-So now your telling me that is has something to do with God not existing?Jeez dude- Talk about reading between the lines…I’m sorry, but I find it a bit overbearing that the message is a bit more deeper…..ALTHOUGH in the times of the Roman Empire, the main things you did was eat until you threw up,sleep,eat some more, and have some sex….(That is what my English Language Arts teacher told me) I’m terribly sorry if this comment wasn’t as deep as the others…I was giving my opinion

Most people here thought it was about the French Revolution, but you can have your opinion too, and it could have merit. But if that was what you thought at first, what are you thinking now?

The Romans: sure they eat and slept and had sex…in between building one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, and introducing many innovations that the world still follows/uses even today. But hey, let’s not talk about not reading in between the lines.

Last week late night I was laying in bed alone scanning the radio stations on my headset when this song was starting up. I liked the beginning melody so I stopped to listen. The headset brings out the clarity of the lyrics and I started to concentrate hard on them. There was something really compelling me to focus on what the song was saying and how it was being presented. I realized the lyrics to this song was making a direct connection to my life of the last two years. I was at the pinnacle of my career when the walls were closed on me. A company layoff shattered many of my plans. I discovered my castles were standing on pillars of salt, bitter, and pillars of sand, very unstable.
The overall meaning as I saw it was the collapse of Wall Street, and in particular, the unscrupulous investors who day after day rolled the dice and enjoyed the power of seeing the fear in their enemy’s eyes. They knew in their core being what they were doing was wrong and that eventually when judgement day arrives for them St. Peter wont’ be calling there name for entrance into heaven. The writer of these lyrics instead of being anti- religious, I feel is expressing pro- religious views. The line where he states, “I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing” is a cry out knowing his or her wrongs will be judged and they are asking for guidance from God. Another line which I think has been quoted wrong is “Roman Cavalry choirs are singing.” Never heard of Roman Cavalry choirs, but I have heard of Roman Catholic choirs.
The song is a commentary also on the American way of over consumption, selfish attitudes, and a hollow search for meaning, and a constant unsatisfied yearning to find what is the real reason for why we exist at all.

That’s an interesting take; the Wall street collapse angle. In retrospect that would be quite appealing.

Somehow I don’t think Chris Martin could have predicted the collapse though.

I like the last bit about it being a commentary on the American way of life. And I’m sorry to hear about how it affected you. While I don’t like the words hope and wish, I look foward to things going better for you.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Everyone has their own interpretations of what this song means, however, the only interpretation that truly matters is that of the writers of the song (Coldplay). After reading and listening to interviews of the band members on this song’s lyrics, it made sense to me. Your explanation of this song is clearly on point. Chris Martin is singing as a man who has not only fallen off of his thrown, but has also fallen from grace. What he is trying to get across to people is that money and power won’t hold you up once judgment day arrives. 🙂

From further researching Chris Martin’s interpretation of Coldplay’s Viva La Vida lyrics, he never stated that this particular meaning is the true definition of their song. He simply said that it represented not just one specific dictator, but government in general and how power is abused. He also stated that he was apart of a religion (did not specify which one) and that he was intrigued with the idea of living life then being analyzed by it after death; therefore, he believed in a higher power (God). The song basically talks about a fallen ruler. He once was on top of the world, then based upon his bad decisions, he was exiled, overthrown, or executed (simple as that). Long Live Life just means what the title says (Viva la vida or death and all his friends)-live your life to the fullest, don’t complain, don’t become greedy with power, live in your season, or follow death and all his friends. 🙂

hey, it doesn’t just have to be the literal interpretation of a ruler fallen from grace, but it can also be a metaphor for life in general. have you ever been in a place where you have been at the top and fallen? to me it sounds a lot like the wheel of fortune within Shakespearean texts, but i don’t think hes actually referring to Shakespeare, its just the idea of the wheel of fortune and the way in which things go around. in this way, i believe it is a general comment on life, and is in that way, an every-mans journey. And also, the comment above, the person who said “the only interpretation that matters is the one from whom the song was written”? (or something like that), bull. i hold strongly that this song was written for interpretation. its a core principle of postmodernism (death of the author), or rather if you don’t like the idea that this may be a postmodern text, the advent of free thought. (see how I’m not telling you what to believe?…. yeah.)

My personal interpretation of this song:
It is about a man who took over someone else’s power.
But he grew over-confident. He thought he could do anything and he was the one in control. ( rise the seas)
But the people he ruled kept going along with him even if they thought he was wrong because they feared his power. ( represented by lines: Once you go, “there was never an honest word” and ” I discovered that my castles stand upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand” (pillars being lies) (Castles being the man himself)
But the man realizes he had made a very wrong decision (wicked and wild wind)
So he goes to worship before a battle( be my mirror: Show me what i’ve become, my sword: give me strength, my shield: protect me, missionaries: support me.)
But he realizes he had no control at all. (It was the people that shaped)
Overall Message: You can only find out who you truly are from others. Don’t be too overconfident because you can fall from the top.

*************NOT VERY GOOD AT POETRY!!!!******
JUST WHAT COMES TO MY MIND!

All in all this is a song not a biblical text or a historical account. If Chris was intending this to be analysed to a larger extent he could have easily turned this into a form of poetry or something along the lines, but in the end it is a song and you can analyse and support or criticise all you want it will always be about the popularity of the song and the benefits from it. It was about making money (even though he may still enjoy his music career is besides the point) it is his career and he puts thought into his work, obviously, but it is about weather or not it will sell to the world. Don’t get tied up over small things in life guys =D

Hi Lenny, you did an awesome job writing down the meaning of the song. I am a fourteen year old and I had a question. Is it possible that there is another meaning, and one that is contradictory to yours that could belong to Viva la Vista? For example, in the first verse it goes, ‘I used to rule the world seas would rise when I gave the word, now in the morning I sweep alone, sweep the streets I used to own,’ For it to seem Christian, you have to imagine that each section of the lyrics is spoken by a different person in the Bible. This verse could be quoted by one of two people. It might be Moses when it talks about raising the sea because it could be talking about when he parted the Red Sea, or it could in fact be God. This first verse could be hinting to when God came down in human form, left his throne, and acted as a servant to us. I like the latter better.
Now let’s look at verse two. ‘I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes.
Listen as the crowd would sing: “Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!” ‘ The first two lines of this part of verse two sounds like they came from Saul, the ruler before King David, directly after the people made a joke out of him and praised the young boy, David after he defeated Goliath. The second two lines of the verse could be coming out of the mouth of Saul after his death and the coronation of David.
Now here is the second piece of verse two. ‘One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me and I discovered that my castles stand upon pillars of salt, and pillars of sand,’ This too could be Saul describing what it was like to become an outcast in Israel after the people liked David more than he. When it talks about the castle standing on salt and sand, he could be telling us that no nation can keep together when there is unrest between the king and his people.
Now it’s time to switch people. This time imagine that St. Peter is narrating, telling us about what it was like in the time diametrically after the ascension of Christ while he was the first Pope. He says, ‘I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing, Roman Cavalry choirs are singing. Be my mirror my sword and shield, my missionaries in a foreign field’ At the crucifixion of Jesus, one of the guards claimed that he really was the Son of God. A lot of the others readily agreed with him, and lots of people rejoiced once Jesus was back with his Father. Could these first few lines not be talking about life in Jerusalem after the Ascension? Now the second two lines, about the mirror the sword the shield and the missionaries elsewhere, could St. Peter be telling a young friend to reflect on the image of Christ and to defend what he believed in? If so, Peter was telling him that he should go join the missionaries in other countries in the known world.
Now the next part is a little tough to understand. It is still Peter talking, or moreover, his deceased ghost if you believe such a thing, ‘For some reason I can’t explain, once you know there was never, never an honest word and that was when I ruled the world,’ This part of the song could be Peter telling us that the heretics were spreading the heresies, or false teachings, to the Christians about whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine. The theologians of this time like St. Thomas Aquinas tried to convince the people that Jesus was Fully Human and fully divine. When it says, ‘that was when I ruled the world, he could be meaning when he ruled the Christian world as Pope.
Now these next two parts of verse three could still be Peter or one of the other Apostles (except Judas), at the Pentecost; better known as the Descent of the Holy Spirit. This part could be describing when the Apostles all came out of the house in Jerusalem all shouting out foreign tongues to the people. Surprisingly, they could all understand the Apostles. That could be representing the part about the people not believing what they had become.
I think that St. ‘Doubting’ Thomas voices this part. Now part two of verse three, goes like this, ‘Revolutionaries wait for my head on a silver plate. Just a puppet on a lonely string, oh who would ever want to be king?’ After the Pentecost, Thousands of people were baptized into the Christian faith, marking the beginning to the persecutions and the purge of the Christians. Imagine that Thomas is on the run from Roman pursuers who are out to kill him. Thomas could be doubting Christ again quoting that he’s ‘just a puppet on a lonely string.’ And he is sighing that he doesn’t know who’d ever want to be his king and save him from almost certain demise.
Now with the first part of the second chorus, ‘I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing, Roman Cavalry choirs are singing. Bring my mirror my sword and shield, my missionaries in a foreign field’ imagine that the Roman emperor is talking after the death of Peter, deciding that he will almost certainly kill off the Israelites who are stepping out of line. He’s telling an attendant to bring his mirror, sword, and shield and that he’s sending out his own batch of missionaries to tell the people to get back in line or suffer, and that if there is a resistance, he knows St. Peter won’t call his name, meaning that he won’t die in the fight, as Peter was the one in Christianity who would let the dead into Heaven. Now he says that ‘never an honest word’ will be spoken about who Christ was or how he lived his legacy.
Now the chorus repeats itself. Imagine for one last time that you see a dying man laid out on his deathbed, hearing the words of the chorus spoken by St. Peter earlier. He mutters for the last time that ‘for some reason he can’t explain, he knows St. Peter will call his name.’ Now hear Peter for one last time reiterating the emperor saying, “Never an honest word, but that was when I ruled the world.’
If you did indeed read all of this long and complex explanation, I thank you. I’m not saying that your version is wrong, which it most certainly isn’t, but I’d like to think that if what I believe ‘Viva la Vita’ means, that Mr. Martin has converted back to Christianity. It is important to have something to hold onto in your life, something usable for inspiration to form off of, so I thank you once again and I compliment you on how well you dug for your facts to make that article. Now if for any reason you want this, i have a copy of it and would be glad to let you use it on your website if it crossed your mind. You can contact me at the email address I left to send this post. Thank You and God Bless!

Thanks for the lenghty response. You’ve obviousy thought this through very carefully. I commend you for this. Yes, I did read every word you posted and it is saved here for as long as this blog exists. A lot of what you post makes sense.

Thanks for replying so fast! The second explanation sounds good too. You see, my 8th grade class is from a Catholic private school and I’m in charge of putting together a movie with pictures throughout the years of the graduating class, and, being Catholic, my teacher wants all of the songs to be appropriate for said such a school. I really like Viva la Vida and I thought it would be perfect for the movie, but it being like you said in your first description, a bit on the atheistic side, I was trying to come up with an excuse for it to sound Christian. Again thanks for replying and i’m sorry for making such a lengthy post! I write a lot for my local newspaper and I like to be descriptive with my work. Bet if I tried writing something like that again in a post on a different site, I’d probably crash the server! Thanks, Lenny!

I love this song! It has a variety of meanings, varies on the person, I guess. Now I have been in many arguments regarding religion and the existance of God..Personal, I believe in God. And every single argument I simply answer:

Two things:
1. I love this song. Thanks for giving me an idea of what the lyrics mean.
2. As far as the debate between Believers and Non-believers, this was simply a post to cast ones opinion on the lyrics to this song. Not some stupid clash between “God is real and created everything” and “God is a lie, Science matters.” It matters on ones view of Religion, not putting down ones belief over yours. To simply put it, this is a stupid argument over religion. Both sides are right. Case solved.

P.S. Oh, and saying that humanity is “far enough” to no longer need a god makes me sick. That’s like using somebody to advance through a project, then drop them and leave them to die. Wether I (or you) believe in a religion, I bet anyone would agree that that’s terrible.

I do trust all the ideas you have introduced on your post. They’re very convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too brief for starters. May you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.

This is brilliant.
And Lenny makes the most sense.
Congratulations with this interpretation of this song, not many people would think of it this way.
And I’ve taken two classes that involved religion and how things came to be. And I noticed many things from it. Such as the religion being the creation of men to decide who rules, etc.
And nature nooooooooot proof that god exists. Our bodies aren’t perfect, although they are pretty extraordinary. They work the way they do because of evolution, adapting to survive.
And also, I know this is a very late comment, but it happens. I had to explain-tell that.

Unable to believe I’m adding to a thread started over four years old, I’d like to throw in my opinion in regards to the what the lyrics may refer.

I am personally not convinced it refers to any specific historical figure, whether it is Napoleon, Hitler or other despot.

However, given Chris Martin was raised Catholic I think it refers to the rise and decline of catholicism and its popes in specific and Christianity and religion in general (not stating other religions are any more or less true or rational than catholicism is, I’m talking lyrics here).

The perspective of the song seems to switch between god or a single pontiff (claiming to act on behalf of god) and the position of pope (the Popes are ‘kings’) as if itself is a conscious entity viewing the (transitional) individual popes as just ‘caretakers’ of the position (again like a monarchy).

In a broader view any organised religion (ancient or not) can take the place of the god/king (leader of the movement) and and then the position itself becomes it own entity.

Anyway, once you think of that it become easier to understand the lyrics, at least that what I think.

Ello peoples… I strongly believe that this song is based on the fall of a being that was once at the right hand of God and lost his place by being full of himself. The part of the song that talks about a “key” and how it was taken away its the key that was taken away from him by Jesus when He was crucified.

Lucifer was the angel that took care of the “music” in the heavens. This is why music now is such an instrument to make people what they are, make them dress like they do, act, etc. It is a powerful tool that the enemy uses. This song is just the bases of the fall of this angel and his acceptance to what he has done and what has been taken away from him and remembering what he had and in a way felling remorse. That part about remorse could be the singer knowing that there is a heaven and a hell and not knowing how to get back to heaven. But there is.

“It is a powerful tool that the enemy uses.” Music is a tool that the enemy uses? Who is the enemy? Are you seriously suggestung that music is evil somehow?

“That part about remorse could be the singer knowing that there is a heaven and a hell and not knowing how to get back to heaven.” Not knowing how to get back to heaven? So, is Chris Martin is in hell? Which means we’re all in hell, right?

I believe what hectalvo means is that the “enemy” is what Christians believe as the devil stated in the bible he kills steals and destroys. I am a Christian and in the bible the Lucifer was the head angle of under God (his second in command basically) which now Lucifer is called the devil. Different angles have different roles or jobs, Lucifer’s was music. Saying that there is a literal spiritual power in music, such as musicians that talk about sex and drugs and getting wasted, some people that listen to this type of music aren’t going to church and worshiping God, (which is one of the intentions of the devil) but instead are doing drugs and, this type of music is also kids. In my belief i can’t say if Chris Martian is in Hell or not, it depends on if he accepted Jesus into his heart weather he is in Heaven or not. I do not think that this song is about the fall of Lucifer or about christianity or any religion in general, but thank you very much for the blog Lenny 😀

p.s I am sorry if i am wrong or there are spelling or grammar errors, I am 13 but have a deep interest for things i don’t understand. I would like to know if this helped any one though so reply if you want to 😀 p.s.s Thank you again for the blog.

While I agree that the song lyrics are obviously religious in nature, I interpret them in a completely different manner. When I listen, I hear the lamenting of God for the great loss of faith over time. When I hear “never an honest word” I interpret it as a display of how the Catholic church and kings of the past used God and organized religion as a fear tactic to control in their greed and malice. When it speaks of the “missionaries in a foreign field” I took that to mean the clergy and how He trusted them to be his “sword and shield” and he was betrayed by their actions. My point is I don’t interpret it as an “anti-God” song, but more of a song that God would sing in his pain while watching the faith die out. Why would anyone trust and believe after being used and abused by the “men of faith”? However, that period of time was when more men believed.. “Never an honest word, but that was when I ruled the world.”

Many people who have been raised Catholic or have not studied the Bible for themselves or had a PERSONAL relationship with Jesus tend to confuse Christianity with Catholicism. These lyrics seem to do the same. The song sounds like it’s referring to Jesus in the beginning. He was a god in heaven, came to earth to be just a man and “sweep the streets” proving he had no power. He died as a man (I’m guessing the song assumes he didn’t rise again). The confusion in the following lyrics are assuming all of Christ’s followers are also members of the Catholic church. And they have tried to carry on a dead belief. The head on a silver platter refers to John the Revelator. And yes, the entire song is about the capture of the pope by Napoleon’s army and the death of Catholicism/Christianity and the Reign of Atheism in France.
And where did that lead? The main religion became atheism, Bibles were burned and Christians were slaughtered until their blood ran like rivers through the streets of France. Can you say Nazi? Can you say Roman? So many people refuse to study history and create lies from fables.
And what came of France and Atheism? There was so much mass confusion and anarchy and lawlessness they had to bring back religion after all. Hmmmm…remind you of certain country at this time? Gotta love being a Christian in the bay area of California at a time like this. I’m ready to die for my well researched, documented and personally experienced belief. Just like the Martyrs.

You’re not the first person who has intimated that Catholicism and Christianity are two separate things, nor do I suspect will you be the last. I guess the more than 30 000 different denominations within Christianity/Catholicism would each like us to belive that they’re unique as well and are the one’s with the “true faith.”

“…Bibles were burned and Christians were slaughtered until their blood ran like rivers through the streets…” I also guess you’d like us to believe that Christian blood is somehow of more significance/value than the blood of other religious worshippers who also suffered the same fate, usually at the hands of Christians and other competing religions.

The Nazis were catholic. Heather never did any research. She pulled all those accusations against atheists out of her butt like a true catholic would. They never burned bibles They just conquered France and moved on. She’s just throwing a hissy fit that her team is losing to reality. She needs to concoct more lies to keep the old ones going.

@ Heather. Many years ago I heard about subliminal advertising and wondered if mind control was possible. Since then I could not find anything concrete regarding mind control albeit there is one aspect that does make mind control possible. The answer – religion! Virtually all religions (Catholics included) are designed to brainwash people into a state where they become “robotic” i.e. they will buy into a particular religious belief hook, line and sinker and nothing will ever dent their faith. Look at the thousands of religions particularly the major world religions that participate in annual pilgrimages, or evangelist preaching to thousands at a major religious event. The audiences all appear like zombies. As the evangelists preaches his sermon the folks enter a state of uncontrolled excitement. Do these people ever give the impression that they are thoughtful, independently-minded individuals who are open to criticism of their religion and who are capable of questioning their beliefs? Or do they resemble a mind-controlled horde who will tear to shreds anyone who rejects their beliefs?

As you study the Bible you will find it strange and unreasonable that an omnipotent an omniscient God could have created such a poorly thought out world. God’s son had to die for God’s lack of forethought in design, and Christian believers must feel lifelong remorse that God’s son was killed for such imperfection. Furthermore look at the moral message of the Bible – it is contradictory – violent in some places an unbelievably loving in others. If God wanting to reveal himself He would find an unquestionable way of doing this. Any divine message would be clear rather than in a strange code that only linguists can interpret. A standardized life manual is definitely lacking! Oh and by the way, Atheism is not a religion.

Hey I love this interpretation but I just had one question: What do you make of the album cover being a painting of the French Revolution? How is it tied into or relate to your interpretation? Sorry if you’ve already answered this a thousand times I’m just curious.

In great detail and with an open mind I have read the posts of individuals on here. I do agree of the general census on here that Coldplay isn’t of a believing nature like most artistic entities comprised in todays media. My question however, consist of the possibility or likeliness of individuals 3500 hundred years being able to foresee the future as written in the book of revelation without the divinity of a mighty god? If indeed god is made up by a group of people for the purpose of manipulation, why don’t we consider the following also; could it be that god indeed exists and the peoples who aren’t obedient to his from what I know very healthy rules and guide would use the word of god to increase disobedience for their own gains and because they themselves cannot abide by and live a morally righteous life? I am considering if I were comprised of ignorance and disbelieve I too would want others to obtain my train of thoughts so that maybe god changes his rules. Or even better yet, The more people I have under my control the more powerful I become no? As it is written in biblical scriptures people will be lead astray and today we are being led astray from the existence of god. Why would I follow the general census when the general census is too trying to control me and my thoughts in believing a scientific theory of the big bang? Why would I believe something that’s new over something that existed for 3500 hundred and more years? Why would I become ignorant to discredit past generations of all faiths and their word when in todays society lies and manipulation are the forefront of success? I learned that though its tougher to swim against the current the best way that would be. Please do not feel tagged if you’re an atheist for I couldn’t care less to change your mind about god. It is not me who cares for you but the presence in the big blue sky who may care for thee!

It was quite difficult to follow your reasoning so I don’t quite know what you’re trying to get across. From what I can make out, you seem to be saying that you’re more comfortablw with what was written in some archaic relgious text, than what scientists with access to modern tools, are saying. If you feel you are being led astray, by all means don’t believe modern scientists; none of them have forced you to believe any of their discoveries upon pain of death and everlasting damnation in a mythical hell.

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”
One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand

If there was a meaning to these lyrics going with document, what would it be?

My personal definition to these specific lyrics is about a Tyrant/King who used to hold all power, then he died and saw his castle that stands in ruins. Something or other at least.

Yeah, that interpretation would be the literal one. However, songwriters usually don’t intend for their songs to be taken literally. The lyrics are meant to be metaphors for something else entirely. My particualr interpretation may not be the right one, but perhaps that’s the whole point; to create ambiguity which leads to many discussions…

I agree with you Lenny, with Tigranes interpretation being too literal. I will attempt to explain how I would interpret these lines, with an analogy.

In sport, after a match, you tend to have reporters asking the sportsman, about how he thought the match had gone. One of the ways he could answer is as follows:

Well, we started of very strong, as we abandoned our old playing style, we were able to made great progress, we could hear the spectators cheering us on. We had them rattled running all over the pitch,it felt as if we would roll up the match without any problems.
But after the break, we continued with our playing style, but they seemed to have come up with way to counter our capabilities, neutralising our attack and exposing our weakness in defense and just pounded us.

Now, imagine this not being a sports match but a debate not held by persons but ideas. On the side faith based religion and on the other side rational thought/skeptisism/science and this debate started 3000 years ago.

Now you ask the faith based ‘debater’ how the debate is going, not using metaphors, this may be said:

Well, we started of very strong, as we abandoned our old impersonal myths and legends. People were really enthusiastic about a god would be on their side and justice would be dispensed to all. All other ideas were swept before us.
After the enlightenment and age of reason (etc…) we continued with our campaign, but suddenly they now showed us our reasoning was built on pillars of….

Perhaps not the best analogy, but i think i have written enough for now. I’ll explain more if peeps ask for it.

Glad you thought it was clear enough to follow. I, myself had the feeling I was just like on old explorer recounting his exploits in the front of a roaring hearth, mumbling on and on (Fast Show, anyone?).

Sorry… I ended up looking them up on a few different places, and it is cavalry, but another line I know for sure is wrong is “Upon pillars of sand, pillars of sand.” It’s “Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand.” The “pillars of salt” part is supposedly a reference to Lot’s wife from when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed

I thought the song Viva la vida was based off the French Revolution, specifically Napoleon and his conquests. “Roman Cavalry choirs” wouldn’t fit in that period, and the fact that Romans did not have cavalries,but legions. If Romans had cavalries, then there is no point of having choirs in them?

Romans (as in the ancient Roman empire) had cavalry. And, if memory serves me correctly legions included cavalry, infantry, artillery, engineering units etc and are comparable (as a military group type) to our modern divisions.

However, I am very much convinced the ‘Roman’ in this song does not refer to them, but to Rome the place as in ‘from Rome’ (the ancient Roman Empire referred to the fact they came from Rome or near Rome). Like Roman in Roman Catholicism does not refer to the ancient Romans, but to the place. And Roman Catholicism is the particular Christian flavour that was/is practised in Rome (and subsequently declared .all other forms of Catholicism/Christianity as a heresy).

As Christian Medieval states primarily adhered to the Roman christian flavour, their armies, which included of course cavalry, can be said to be ‘Roman’ (from a religious point of view). It would not take a leap of faith to imagine having choirs in those cavalry companies.

Thanks for the interpretation Lenny, gave me some things to think about. I like this song and I really didn’t think of any hidden meaning behind it. Until now that I’m curious and tried to google its meaning. I just took it literally about some kind of person with high authority then losing it all.

An interesting read. I don’t personally agree with that interpretation, but everyone takes something different from art.

On a non-opinions basis, I disagree with the facts of the following explanation:

‘The conviction evidenced by “I know Saint Peter won’t call my name” is the final admission that that there is no Saint Peter, never was, and never will be.’

Well, there certainly WAS a Saint Peter, all ways was, and that is a fact that will never change. Emperor Nero Augustus Caesar categorically had him executed!….. It is also true that he was a ‘Saint’… venerated by the Catholic Church (and others). Even when religious evidence is ignored, this man still existed.
Whether he’s actually guarding the gates of heaven is the question, not his existence!

St. Peter has never been referenced by any contemporary writers at the time of the bible being compiled. The only reference to him is in the bible. It’s kinda hard to accept that only one source would know about him, and the veracity of the bible has always been in question.

i have a story for you here it is:An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”

” Oh, I don’t know,” said the atheist. “How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?” as he smiled smugly.

“OK,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”

To which the little girl replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don’t know shit?”

That was funny when I first saw it many years ago; now it’s mildly amusing.

So what makes you qualified to discuss heaven, hell and life after death? Either you’re dead and writing to me from heaven/hell and you’ve actually seen this god/devil? Or, you’ve read the archaic religious text written in the bronze/stone age by men who had no scientific knowledge, known otherwise as the bible (or perhaps some other archaic “holy book”)… and accepted everything without question. Which is it?

Forgive my delayed reply, i tend to think before I type, I’m slow that way (wish the same was for my mouth though), but enough of the chit chat.

After reading this little anecdote, I had the urge to ask you if you needed more straw. The fact you used a story (I didn’t think it was that funny, because I am not five) doesn’t change the fact it is a strawman argument.

Drop the letter a from atheist and invert “no god” to god etc… and shazam …. You have the same story but now the other way round, which would also be a strawman argument. In other words, it carries no weight as it addresses not the position (a)theists make/have.

Now, just in case you would want to defend this prosaic nonsense, by saying the theist could claim ‘he knows’ (directly, because god/holy scripture told him) or ‘god knows’ (he doesn’t know, but he knows someone who knows) would be a special case of an argument from authority (the biggest one there is, actually).

you also took words out of my mouth by saying every non believer is a rapist. I said and quote: “you can rape someone and be fine because in the end it doesn’t matter” meaning you dont believe in the afterlife and so nothing really matters. i did not say every non believer is a rapist. I would like you to take of that page

This song whether Chris Martin knew it or not… is about Satan & the Anti-Christ Spirit . Satan used to have it all (held the key) until he was banished by God. now he slithers the streets…his spirit manifested in past kings. The final Anti- Christ will rise again FOR THE LAST TIME at the end of time. ( It’s upon us) . ..ushered in with WW3. (nuclear blasts/winds & war drums Jerusalem Bells)……. And for some reason he can’t explain…St. Peter WILL call his name. (PETRUS ROMANUS) the false prophet for the Anti-Christ. I believe Chris Martin was given a Revelation. – The Bible already has this story in detail for you…. Satan will be cast into the Lake of Fire with those that do not accept the free gift of Salvation God. …. Listen to the song from this point of view & it makes the most sense….no need to speculate.

… The spirit realm is a VERY real thing. Many are given dreams, visions & can you believe it…. “SONG LYRICS.” Spiritual discernment is another gift ….Some have it some do not.
I believe, from MANY of his songs he is very in-tune with the spiritual world.
Chris’s Lyrics in this particular song are truth…..Maybe he read the Bible or maybe his eyes are open from the opposite perspective?
This story line has been around since the beginning of time…. Not only is this a Coldplay song….it’s written in the stars.

FyI…we are at the END OF TIME

EVERY single person will be held responsible for what their lives held on earth and what they “BELIEVE:… our time here is a just blip on the radar compared to Eternity.. don’t miss the boat…

This might give you proof you seek or at least question your current beliefs.

-Using the dramatic scenario of an investigative journalist pursuing his story and leads, Lee Strobel uses his experience as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune to interview experts about the evidence for Christ from the fields of science, philosophy, and history.

Until your post on May 12, 2013 at 1:49 pm, I didn’t feel the need to respond to your messages as I ignored most of your non lyrics related remarks.

However, when you cart out Lee Strobel (and in particular The Case of Christ), which seems to be a source of your convictions, I cannot but respond to counter.

Lee Stobel has been debunked so many times, he shouldn’t be allowed to be within 50 meters of a bunk bed, to prevent him from injury.

At best, I would say he is willfully ignorant and at worst in my opinion, he is deliberately intellectually dishonest. In “The Case for Christ is” he is about as much of an investigative journalist as the Harry Potter books describe real historical events. And the less said about his ‘experts’, the better.

I can refute the entire book with the following statement. “As ‘The Case for Christ’ fails to demonstrate reasonably the gospels are reliable eye witness reports, I reject the claim that they are, and therefore all conclusions based on the assertion that they are reliable and accurately describe real events, are also rejected.”

The book and its conclusions entirely rely on the acceptance of that premiss (the gospels are reliable).

But here’s the real funny thing, I believe, in the first chapter (or chapters), it is already stated that the four gospels are NOT statements written by eyewitness, but are reports written by people who were reporting on what (some) other people had said, they had heard or seen.

This makes the gospels at best hear say.

And to top it off, it is also admitted in the book, certain sections had been added later by different authors.

However, this is subsequently completely ignored, of course when it would throw a doubt on the fore drawn conclusions. In other words, when he says he goes where evidence leads him, I don’t buy it for one second.

My advice, use the book to stoke up the hearth on a cold night and get some real use out of it.

I think the song means something else then what you just said…I think he is talking possibly about his freedom from the religious part of Church but what the real church should look like..religious traditions and all these made up human things we do to idols and stuff all will fade away and be dead like kings do (in the bible is many many times God mentions the people not having the love of God in their hearts and how people will follow false doctrines and will be led astray to do the wrong things even in the name of God, calling good things evil and evil things good) they die and the power of those churches die. people are singing empty words the church is just hollow and God’s spirit isnt there. I think the beginning of the song talks about God’s spirit being so powerful in the church and then how it is when it leaves. So he left the church.. and he was angry and gave up on God. But the truth is God won’t give up on you and thats how he knows saint peter will call his name at the end. He said he used to be way into the the church stuff but i believe he means the religious spirit that God says he hates in the new testament. It controls people and is false.

I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to say here, with more or less everything.

First, I don’t know what you mean with ‘… his freedom from the religious part of Church but what the real church should look like…’? What is the ‘religious part of the church’ (and the second part looks like a like a ‘True Scotsman fallacy’ to me).

The sentences don’t logically follow, it all looks like fragments thrown together; ‘… religious traditions and all these made up human things we do to idols and stuff all will fade away and be dead like kings do (…) they die and the power of those churches die.’ ?!?

As I don’t want to guess at the meaning, can you explain, what you mean with all of of that?

The next segment also requires further elaboration: ‘people are singing empty words the church is just hollow and God’s spirit isnt [sic] there.’

Do you mean the people know they are singing empty words, i.e., they don’t believe the words, in god, in the church? Because if they do believe, the words aren’t hollow (at least not to them), I am rather confused here.

As well, what is god’s spirit in the church? Perhaps explain how you view this spirit to be in the church to begin with and thus how it can ‘leave’? Honestly I do not know what you mean with ‘spirit’ in this context. Is there a difference between god and its ‘spirit’? If so, what is the difference, if not, then why say ‘spirit’ and just god?